Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

ADDRESS FOR RETURN

"of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, during 1951."[Sri H. Lucas-Tooth.]

ALIENS (NATURALISATION)

ADDRESS FOR RETURN

"showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1951, been registered at the Home Office; and (2) Particulars of cases in which persons previously naturalised have been deprived of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies during the same period."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an Address be presented for a Return showing the number of offences relating to Motor Vehicles in England and Wales, the number of Persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in Magistrates' Courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the Police, together with the number of persons concerned, during 1951."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Sir H. Williams: Before this is passed I think it would be a good idea to have some comment from the Minister who moves it.

Mr. Speaker: These Motions for Addresses are generally taken formally at the beginning of business.

Sir H. Williams: This is the time, I understand, when contested business cannot be taken, but I am opposing this Motion at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot accept that, because this is information to which the House of Commons is entitled and which it has always had. Unless the hon. Member can show some cause for it, I could not accept his Motion at the moment.

Sir H. Williams: I understand that we cannot take opposed business until after Questions. We cannot have a vote now, and therefore I say that this cannot be carried nemine contradicente.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I must overrule the hon. Member on that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

H.M. Dockyards

Mr. Albu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his reply to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates for changes in the structure of management of Her Majesty's dockyards will be made before the end of this session.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I regret that the reply is "No, Sir." The hon. Member may be assured that the report on the outstanding recommendations will be sent as soon as possible.

Mr. Albu: Can the Civil Lord say, in view of the fact that the recommendations were made over a year ago, whether the reason for the extraordinary delay is really the very serious consideration by the Admiralty of the recommendations made for improving the structure of the dockyards or whether, as it appears, it is due to the effect of a stonewalling policy?

Mr. Digby: Most certainly serious consideration is given to these matters. They raise very far reaching issues, and I do not think it would be advantageous to consider them with undue haste.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Civil Lord aware that commercial men frequently know very little about the movement and working of ships in port, and ships' officers


know very little about the commercial side of the undertaking? Would he consider making a commercial man manager of a port and a ship's officer or admiral responsible for the marine side of the work?

Mr. Albu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he commenced discussions with the Staff Side of the administrative Whitley Council on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates concerning Her Majesty's dockyards.

Mr. Digby: The interest of the Admiralty Whitley Council in the recommendations of the Select Committee was discussed in a preliminary way in December, 1951. There has been some correspondence since that date in which the Staff Side have given an indication of their views. A meeting took place yesterday which discussed some of the recommendations which interest the Whitley Council a further meeting to deal with the remainder is being arranged soon.

Mr. Albu: Is not this a very extraordinary reply in view of the fact that the Civil Lord on 16th July informed me that one of the reasons why a reply to the recommendations could not be made was because the Admiralty had to consult the administrative staff side of the Whitley Council? Do I now understand that this consultation only took place for the first time on an organised basis yesterday?

Mr. Digby: If the hon. Member will look at my reply again he will see that the matter was raised first of all last December.

Mr. Callaghan: Was the meeting arranged yesterday because my hon. Friend put down a Question for today?

Mr. Digby: No, that was not so.

Dr. Bennett: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will increase the proportion of disabled persons employed in the Royal Dockyards.

Mr. Digby: The proportion of disabled persons employed in the Royal Dockyards is substantially greater than the standard percentage laid down by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. I regret that I can give no undertaking to increase this proportion, as so much of the work in the Royal Dockyards is unsuited to disabled persons.

Dr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people who are lame or otherwise injured make very good clerks and writers, and that there are a lot of these people living near the dockyards and ports?

Mr. Digby: We shall certainly bear this in mind.

Officers (Resignations)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty for how long it is intended to restrict naval officers from resigning from the Service.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): The standing rule which has been in force for many years is that, subject to special consideration when compassionate grounds are advanced, no officer of the Royal Navy is allowed to retire voluntarily, or resign, if Service requirements would thereby be prejudiced. Since 1950, it has been necessary to interpret this rule strictly, although all applications on compassionate grounds are most carefully considered. I regret that I cannot at present foresee when some relaxation will become possible.

Mr. Lindsay: Can we take it that the Admiralty will not retain this restriction a day longer than is essential?

Commander Noble: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I think he will realise that while we are retaining many officers beyond the terms of their engagement, any concession we should make should be made to them first while others receive most careful consideration.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman watch carefully the question of naval medical officers, surgeons and other people who go in as young men who have just graduated from the medical colleges, since if they are kept in the Navy for a long time it is almost impossible for them to resume their place in civil life? They are in a quite special category.

Commander Noble: Yes, I will see that that is given careful consideration.

Captain Ryder: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the rigid enforcement of this restriction is bound to have a discouraging effect on people


going forward for commissions, and is also bound to have an adverse effect on promotion?

Navigation Obstructions

Dr. Bennett: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to remove the obstructions to navigation extending between Hamstead Ledge and the Solent Banks.

Commander Noble: I hope that the work which has caused this obstruction to minor vessels will be completed by 31st October or very soon thereafter, when the warning notices will be withdrawn.

Helicopter Training

Dr. Bennett: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements he provides for the training of naval helicopter pilots

Commander Noble: All naval helicopter pilot training is carried out, at present, at the Royal Naval Air Station, Gosport. Courses last 12 weeks and each pilot does approximately 75 hours flying, which includes practice in landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier.

Dr. Bennett: In view of the obviously increasing importance, and recognition of the importance, of helicopters for naval warfare, is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the establishment for training these pilots, who will no doubt be required in great numbers, is adequate?

Commander Noble: Yes, I think that the present training arrangements are adequate for our present requirements. I remember my hon. Friend raising this matter on the Navy Estimates when he asked whether the R.N.V.R. could be considered in this matter, and I can assure him that we have taken fully into consideration the potentialities of that Reserve.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Coronation (Special Stamp Issue)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General his plans with regard to a special issue of stamps for the Coronation.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Designs for a special issue of Coronation stamps are now being

examined. A double-sized stamp in the 2½d. denomination will certainly be issued, but I am sorry my noble Friend cannot for the moment make any further announcement.

New Stamps

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the first stamps bearing the head of Her Majesty the Queen will be available.

Mr. Gammans: I hope that the new 2½d. stamp in the permanent series will be on sale by the end of the year and that the 1½d. stamp will be issued at or about the same time.

Posting Times, S.W. District

Sir H. Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the latest time for posting letters at the South Western District Post Office if they are to be delivered in the London area by the first post next morning; and what was the corresponding posting time in 1939.

Mr. Gammans: Letters and postcards, but not correspondence at the printed paper rate, for first delivery throughout London can be posted at the South Western District Post Office up to 9.30 p.m. on weekdays and up to 6 p.m. on Sundays: in 1939 the latest posting time for first delivery was 12.30 a.m.

Sir H. Williams: Could my hon. Friend say why the postal delivery is the only industry in Britain which is less efficient than it was 50 years ago?

Mr. Gammans: If we were to revert to the pre-war practice it would mean either increasing the staff by some several thousand men or else reverting to a practice where postmen worked a 16-hour broken tour of duty, which I think would be unacceptable in all quarters of the House.

Sir Edward Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a notice at the South West District Office which says that if persons post there up to 6.30 a.m. letters will be delivered in S.W.1 the same day? Is that incorrect?

Mr. Gammans: That is not what my hon. Friend asked. He asked what time at night letters should be posted for delivery next morning.

Sir E. Keeling: Then the answer as to letters for S.W.1 should have been midnight.

Offices (Designation Signs)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the difficulty experienced by visitors in finding post offices in this country and if he will consider making and issuing to every post office a projecting sign of symbolic character and easily recognisable design.

Mr. Gammans: No general complaints have been received by the Post Office on this matter, but my hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that over half the Crown Post Offices are already provided with illuminated projecting signs, and half of the remainder are to be equipped. My noble Friend is reluctant to go further than this because of the cost involved, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind, I should be only too happy to look into it.

Postage Charges

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the heavy cost of postage on letters up to 2 oz. and the burden which this charge imposes upon the community, he will consider relaxing the Post Office monopoly on the carriage of letters, either by granting licences to appropriate agents to convey letters on a commercial basis or by permitting members of the public to make co-operative arrangements for the conveyance of letters, at least until such time as he is able to restore the 1d. post.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. My noble Friend is not prepared to alter the 300 years old principle of monopoly in the carriage of letters. That principle is accepted in practically every country throughout the civilised world, and on it rests the present system of uniform rates of postage for inland letters irrespective of distance.
My hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that our charge for a 2 oz. letter is amongst the lowest in the world. With regard to the 1d. post, I would be misleading him if I led him to suppose that there is hope of its restoration;

after all, there are not many services in this country which would like to be asked to put their charges back to what they were at the time of the First World War.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the Question was prompted by certain rumours that there might be an increase in the level of postage, and that his answer will give a considerable measure of reassurance?

Mr. Shinwell: May we be allowed to congratulate the Minister of his preference for nationalisation?

Government Departments (Service Charges)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increase which has taken place in the cost of providing the postal and telegraph services, arrangements will now be made for all Government Departments to pay for these services at the same rates as are charged to business subscribers.

Mr. Gammans: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. The Post Office receives a credit in its commercial accounts for all services provided for Government Departments, the postal services being credited at cost and telephone and telegraph services at the same rates as those charged to the general public.
As my noble Friend announced on 26th June last in another place, as from 1st April next, certain Departments—the Ministry of Defence, the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury—will pay for telephone and telegraph services in cash, but whether Departments pay cash or not does not, in fact, affect the commercial accounts which the Post Office presents to Parliament.

Brigadier Rayner: Would it not be a very good thing if practically all Government offices were self-accounting in these two respects?

Mr. Gammans: This experiment has been tried in the Departments I mentioned, which in fact cover three-quarters of the telephone and telegraph services which Government Departments receive from the Post Office.

Mail Thefts

Mr. Proctor: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total amount of losses sustained through mail bag robberies during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement regarding the more recent robberies.

Mr. Gammans: The estimated loss of currency involved in mail bag thefts during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952, is about £290,000, which includes the loss of about £240,000 in the mail van robbery in Central London on 21st May, last.
As regards the second part of the Question, I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the statement made by my noble Friend yesterday in another place.

Mr. Proctor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the public are gravely disturbed by the lack of success of his Department in dealing with this matter, and can he assure us that he is taking the necessary steps to see that notes returned for cancellation or destruction are cancelled and rendered useless before they leave the banks? If he has any difficulty in devising a simple method of doing this, would he consult the Railway Executive who cancel tickets and render them useless?

Mr. Gammans: In reply to the first part of the supplementary, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for law and order and for the apprehension of criminals does not rest upon the Post Office but upon the Police. With regard to the second point, only a comparatively small part of the currency which is sent through the Post Office is due for cancellation, and therefore I think the hon. Member will agree that his suggestion does not apply.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is there any significance in the reply which the hon. Gentleman has given in the sense that he has only given the amount of currency. The Question asks for the total loss, and not only the loss of currency.

Mr. Gammans: There is no significance except that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Post Office does not keep returns of the amount of losses claimed but only those losses for which they pay compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman

would like to know what those figures are I should be delighted to give them to him.

Mr. Proctor: Would it be correct to say that the £240,000 that was lost consisted of notes sent for cancellation? If that is so, how does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that is only a small proportion?

Mr. Gammans: Only a percentage of those notes were sent for cancellation.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Dealing with the first part of the Question, can the Minister say what proportion of these losses take place when the bags are outside the direct control of the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: When mail bags are lost on the railways they are the responsibility of the railways.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on the ambush of the Post Office mail van near Oxford Street in May last; and if internal Departmental inquiries are now complete.

Mr. Gammans: I regret I have no further information to give the House about the mail van robbery in Central London on 21st May last. On the question of mail robberies generally, I cannot usefully add to what was said yesterday by my noble Friend in another place.

Mr. Hobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time the House was informed in more detail of the result of the Departmental inquiry, particularly in regard to the fact that the mail which was stolen could have been transferred on the Post Office underground railway; that there was a deliberate routeing of the vehicle near Oxford Street, and that the vehicle had been deliberately changed?

Mr. Gammans: With regard to the last two points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I dealt with those when he raised the matter in the House earlier this year. I am sure he would not ask me to give the House any details of the additional precautions that have been and still will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing.

Mr. Hobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman really think that with regard to an inquiry which has taken place in the Post Office the House is entitled to know what


action has been taken with regard to the points I have raised, particularly with regard to the routeing of the vehicle?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the most stringent inquiry has taken place, and I can equally assure him that it would be most undesirable if most of the results of that inquiry were made public.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether all thefts of mail in transit are reported to the police immediately the loss is discovered.

Mr. Gammans: As soon as the Investigation Branch of the Post Office is reasonably satisfied that a theft of mails in transit has been committed, the police are at once informed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the value of this semi-immediate notification to the police become considerably minimised when, despite the requests of the police, the news of the theft is not released to the public, as happened in the case of the £14,000 Doncaster mail robbery?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think that any responsible police officer would agree with that statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is not a fact that the news of the £14,000 robbery which took place between Doncaster and Barnsley was not released to the public until three days after the robbery had taken place?

Mr. Gammans: There was a delay in releasing the news to the public; but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that was deliberate.

Economies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what economies are in prospect in his Department to offset the rising cost of postal services, and to enable the inland postal charge to be pegged at 2½d.

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend is very much alive to the need for every possible internal economy, both by increased mechanisation and by a more economical use of manpower in order to offset rising costs, but I would be misleading the

House if I gave any impression that further substantial economies are possible without depriving the public of some important service which they have hitherto enjoyed. In spite of a steady rise every year in postal and telephone traffic, the Post Office has not increased its non-industrial staff during the past three years, and of the increase in costs of about £50 million in the past two years, only a half has been passed on to the public.

Mr. Dodds: Can the hon. Gentleman now give an assurance that the statement he made recently about the possibility of the letter post being the first casualty need not now be taken too seriously?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to find out what I did say, he will see that it was that if costs in the Post Office continued to rise their charges would rise. I should have thought that that was a platitude.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Will my hon. Friend consider most seriously, if he has to pass on increased charges, whether he could not allow a special low rate of perhaps 2d. a letter for people who are, perhaps, suffering financial hardship and who could post early in the day and thus save themselves money and spread the postal load throughout the day?

Mr. Gammans: I do not want to give my hon. Friend any impression that increased costs are in any way inevitable. Today this country has practically the lowest postal and telephone charges in the world, and Her Majesty's Government are determined to do all in their power to see that that state of affairs continues.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman refuse to countenance a means test?

Television Advisory Committee

Mr. Deedes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to announce the names of the Television Advisory Committee.

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he will announce the appointment of the members of the new Television Advisory Committee; and why it has taken nearly four months to act in this matter.

Mr. Gammans: It has necessarily taken time to reconstitute the Television Advisory Committee, but my noble Friend expects to make an announcement very shortly.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General take the necessary steps to ensure that there are no fellow-travellers on this advisory committee and that they are all loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen?

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider altering the terms of reference of the Television Advisory Committee in view of the report of the Copyright Committee?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question I shall certainly give him an answer.

Telephone Service, Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones on the Brixton telephone exchange are outstanding, as compared with a year ago.

Mr. Gammans: One thousand, five hundred and sixty-six on 30th September, 1952, and 1,281 on 30th September, 1951.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hobson.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not quite quick enough in rising.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Landing Fees

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that, in view of the decision that if aircraft remain on the ground for more than four hours the full landing fee must be paid in addition to that entailed for parking, some civil aviators take off in adverse weather conditions in order to avoid the full landing fee which would be imposed for a long wait; and whether, in view of the danger incurred by this practice, he will reconsider his decision.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the concession under which

aircraft landing solely for Customs, health and immigration clearance are exempt from landing fees. Any such aircraft which remains on the ground for more than six hours after Customs, health and immigration formalities have been completed is liable to the normal landing fee. Our experience has shown that this period is a reasonable one; I have no evidence that this practice is dangerous.

Runways

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will institute an inquiry to consider whether it is essential and economical in land and money to plan future civil airports with, three runways; and, in particular, the requirement that each runway must be 7,000 feet long and have a uniform width of 200 feet throughout its length.

Mr. Maudling: The number of runway directions planned for a new civil aerodrome is governed by the local wind distribution and by the maximum crosswind acceptable by the types of aircraft for which the aerodrome is planned. No runway is constructed unless these conditions make it essential. The dimensions quoted by my hon. Friend refer only to the main runway direction on an aerodrome planned for use by large civil aircraft.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Whilst appreciating that this is a matter for international agreement, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is not time to ask aircraft designers to make adjustments to the design of aircraft so that they do not need increasingly long runways of enormous width? This is a cost factor which is beginning to play a very great part in civil aviation, and all countries cannot afford to have runways which take up 30 acres of land and which cost very large sums of money.

Mr. Maudling: It is a fact that both manufacturers and operators of aircraft are inclined to require additional runways for the take-off and landing of their machines. This is a matter which has given concern to Her Majesty's Government, and we are doing what we cart to influence both manufacturers and operators in the direction of lessening their runway requirements.

Gatwick Airport (Development)

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the estimated capital cost of developing Gatwick Airport according to the plans his Ministry has recently published.

Sir G. Touche: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the estimated costs of the proposed development of Gatwick Airport.

Mr. Maudling: The cost of the first stage of development as proposed in the published plans, copies of which are in the Library, is estimated to be £6 million spread over the next seven years. The total cost of the second stage of development cannot yet be forecast. It will in any case be started only if traffic justifies it and certainly not before 1958.

Sir G. Touche: Can my hon. Friend say whether that includes the cost of diverting the Brighton Road?

Mr. Maudling: That includes the contribution of the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the cost of diverting the Brighton Road, which I understand is the major part of the cost.

Sir G. Touche: Could not the Minister find out from the Minister of Transport the cost of diverting the Brighton Road?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman can also find out by putting down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Gough: Does my hon. Friend remember that the original estimates for London Airport were proved in practice to be hopelessly inadequate, and has he borne that experience in mind when considering the estimates for the first stage of Gatwick Airport?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think my right hon. Friend was in any way responsible for the original estimates for the development of London Airport, but certainly the experience of London Airport has been very closely borne in mind in framing the estimates for the development of Gatwick.

Mr. Lindgren: Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform us whether the statement he has now made covers the aerodrome requirements of B.E.A. if they are also required to vacate Northolt?

Mr. Maudling: I think that is a different question, which I should like to deal with later.

Sir G. Touche: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the many objections raised against the proposed development of Gatwick Airport both on national and local grounds, he will hold a public inquiry into the desirability of this project.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The Government's proposals for the extension of Gatwick Aerodrome were explained to representatives of the planning and other local authorities concerned, and of the Crawley Development Corporation, at a meeting on 6th October. The authorities are now considering these proposals, and they have agreed to let my Department have their views by 20th December.

Sir G. Touche: Have not these authorities asked for a public inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: I think it would be better to await the considered views which these authorities have undertaken to let my Department have in due course.

Sir G. Touche: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a widespread feeling that this development may be a costly blunder and that all that anxiety would be allayed if there were a proper and impartial public inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: There is no doubt that this development will be costly. All aerodromes are of their nature costly. But that does not say that it is a blunder. What I have said is that the authorities concerned are considering seriously and in detail the proposals made and have undertaken to let us have their views by 20th December; and in the circumstances I think it is better that we should await their views.

Sir G. Touche: If they ask for an inquiry, will they get it?

Mr. Maudling: As I have said, it seems advisable to await the receipt of their views.

Sir G. Touche: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what advice he received from the British European Airways Corporation on the suitability of Gatwick Airport for large scale expansion; and if he will state the reason for the present change in policy.

Mr. Maudling: The British European Airways Corporation have stated that Gatwick Airport would be suitable to them for development as an alternate for London Airport. There has been no change of policy as far as the present Government is concerned.

Sir G. Touche: Is not my hon. Friend aware that about four years ago this Corporation made inquiries into this matter and decided that Gatwick was not suitable for large-scale development? Could he say what has happened to make the Corporation change their mind, because the only change in the situation has been the development of the new town at Crawley?

Mr. Maudling: I can speak only for the advice received by the present Government from British European Airways, which is that Gatwick Airport would be suitable for their purpose; and I understand that they have been expressing this point of view for at least the past three years.

Sir H. Williams: Could my hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to start on this job before some money has been provided in the Estimates?

Mr. Maudling: If my hon. Friend will study the Estimates he will find that provision has been made.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could my hon. Friend tell me what will be the loss of good agricultural land involved in the development of these enormous runways?

Mr. Maudling: The amount of land involved is some 700 acres, which I am told is not of the first agricultural quality. I should also like to point out that land between the runways will be cultivated, as it is cultivated on existing civil aerodromes.

Gliding (Age Limit)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what advice he has given to gliding clubs on the age-limit below which schoolboys should be ineligible for membership.

Mr. Maudling: I am considering this matter in the light of a recent accident of which the hon. and gallant Member is aware and will communicate with him.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that it is most deplorable and repugnant that in civil gliding clubs schoolboys of 14 years of age or less should be encouraged to take up gliding whereas the Air Ministry, for very good reasons, do not allow members of the A.T.C. to undertake it under the age of 16?

Mr. Maudling: That is a point of view which will certainly be taken into account, although I could not accept it without also taking into account points of view which other people put forward.

International Phonetic Alphabet

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take to enforce the use in this country of the new international phonetic alphabet for aviation purposes which has been rejected by the British Air Line Pilots Association and by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations.

Mr. Mandling: None, Sir, but it is much to be hoped that airlines and aircrew will collaborate in giving a thorough trial to this internationally agreed phonetic alphabet, without which it is impossible to reach a firm conclusion on its merits.

Mr. Beswick: Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that he has accepted this scheme but that he does not intend to enforce it? As the men themselves say they are not going to use it, would not the best thing be to take away this silly alphabet and have its phonetic throat cut?

Mr. Maudling: I am advised that this alphabet is not legally enforceable in any case, but I suggest that it contains possibilities of substantial advantage on international air routes, and I would ask all those who are concerned with the development of civil aviation to encourage pilots and air lines at least to give it a trial. Until it has been given a trial it is difficult to be certain about its merits.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what period of trial he considers to be a fair one?

Mr. Maudling: I think that is a question of which I should like notice.

Scottish Air Services

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he has yet any statement to make about the future ownership and control of air services in Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying that he is leaving the management and the men of this Corporation in continued uncertainty about the future of their livelihood?

Mr. Maudling: It could, on the other hand, be argued that the possibility of some other operator providing an equally good service at a cheaper cost might spur them on to even greater efforts.

Mr. Ross: Could the Minister tell us what has been the outcome of the discussions which the Minister of Transport had with private flying interests around Prestwick and elsewhere during the Recess?

Mr. Maudling: As I have said, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a further statement at present.

Mr. Beswick: Does the Minister mean by his last statement that he intends to leave this threat over the heads of the Corporation indefinitely?

Mr. Maudling: I merely said, in answer to a Question, that my right hon. Friend has as yet no statement to make about the future ownership of these air services.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to be careful when he gets offers from private individuals for enterprises in this connection? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make careful inquiries into their antecedents, because a good many people are making spurious claims to be able to do things?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has made it clear on more than one occasion that he will make no change in this matter until he is entirely satisfied that such a change would be in the public interest.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will my hon. Friend make sure that every opportunity is given for the transfer of this very out-of-date State enterprise to modern up-to-date private enterprise?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend will take very good care that any opportunities of serving the public interest in general will be taken.

INTERNATIONAL COURT (AWARDS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement of the action he now proposes to take in regard to the judgment against Albania in the Corfu Channel case; and whether the arbitrator appointed by the International Court to advise on certain claims to gold looted by the Germans from Rome in 1943 has yet reported.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I am now awaiting the decision in the arbitration, the arrangements for which were published in White Paper Command 8242. The oral hearings took place in September and it is hoped that the arbitrator will furnish his opinion within the next few weeks.

Mr. Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that just before we rose for the Recess the Minister of State said we were expecting the decision of the arbitrator in August or September? Now we are told that the meeting did not take place until September and that we have still several weeks to wait. Has the right hon. Gentleman convinced the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this delay is unavoidable, in view of the attitude which the hon. Gentleman previously took on this matter?

Mr. Eden: I said only that the hearings took place in September. We did not appoint the arbitrator. It was the late Government who appointed the arbitrator, and I do not think we are to blame if he takes a little longer than I should wish. Personally, I would give him a little more time—if he makes the right answer. [Laughter.] But, perhaps, I ought not to say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Truce Talks

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Korean truce talks.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the Korean truce negotiations; and what are the outstanding difficulties on reaching a settlement.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions the Government have recently engaged in to speed up an armistice in Korea; and what proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government towards that end.

Mr. Eden: Since the Under-Secretary's statement on 30th July the United Nations Command have made continued efforts to reach an armistice agreement. After consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, Commonwealth and other Governments concerned, the United Nations Command put forward on 28th September three new proposals for a solution of the prisoners-of-war difficulty. These have been fully reported in the Press, and I need only mention briefly the main point in each.
Under the first proposal, both sides would agree that the obligation to exchange and repatriate prisoners-of-war would be fulfilled by each side delivering all prisoners held to an agreed place in the demilitarised zone. Individual prisoners would have the right to return to the side on which they were detained, if they so wished.
Under the second proposal, all prisoners willing to be repatriated would be exchanged at once and the remainder would be sent in small groups to the demilitarised zone. There they would be freed from military control and after being interviewed by mutually agreed neutral representatives would be free to go to the side of their choice.
Under the third proposal, on being released in the neutral zone, the men would be free to go north or south without any interviewing or screening of any kind, by neutral or other representatives.
The United Nations proposed in addition that any one of these three procedures could, if desired, be supervised by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or by joint Red Cross teams, or by military observers from both sides.
I think the House will agree that we have here a fair and generous offer,

which the Communists could accept with dignity and confidence.
After a 10-day recess proposed by the United Nations Command to allow time for full consideration, the Communists on 8th October rejected the United Nations Command's proposals and went on to state once again their insistence on the principle of total repatriation of prisoners-of-war on both sides. The United Nations Command, therefore, proposed a recess of the plenary meetings. Liaison officers remain in contact, and plenary meetings can be renewed at once if the other side wishes to discuss our proposals further or has any new proposals of its own to offer. The armistice negotiations thus stand suspended; but they have not been broken off.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that, in the event of the Communists maintaining their silence, alternative proposals will be sought after by our own Government? Can we be further assured that our own Government will not lag behind the United States of America, waiting for them to move to put alternative proposals before the truce negotiators?

Mr. Eden: It would be quite unjust to suggest—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to make the imputation—that the Government have lagged behind anybody in this business. We discussed these proposals with the United States Government at considerable length before they were put forward. They are joint United Nations Command proposals. I really think they are as clear and reasonable proposals as the human mind can devise, and I hope they will be accepted.

Mr. Davies: Has not the programme unfortunately got beyond the stage of the prisoners-of-war problem, and are there not political implications involving recognition of the Peking Government? Is it the view of our Government that once a Korean armistice has been achieved, we shall recognise the Peking Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that the political implications of this situation, as far as the United States discussions are concerned, in relation to this country and the countries of Western Europe and America, are being properly represented and heard?

Mr. Eden: I really do not think that recognition of the Peking Government has arisen in these discussions. In point of fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we do recognise the Peking Government. The difficulty is that they do not recognise us very much.

Prisoner-of-War Camps (Incidents)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain particulars from the United Nations' Command and make a statement on the circumstances in which a large number of Chinese or North Korean prisoners-of-war were killed in recent incidents in United Nations' prison camps; what steps have been taken in recent months generally to improve discipline and administration in these camps; how far British troops are now taking part in prison guard duties; and in which camps.

Mr. Eden: One prisoner-of-war was killed when United States troops were forced to restore order in Enclosure No. 10 at Koje on 23rd August last. On 1st October a more serious incident occurred in Compound No. 7 of United Nations' Command prisoner-of-war Camp No. 3A on Cheju Island. I understand that the prisoners in this compound have all elected to be repatriated.
The incident began when Chinese prisoners staged a prepared demonstration. The prisoners refused to obey the Camp Commander's order, given by loudspeaker, that, if the demonstration were not stopped, force would have to be used. When two platoons of United States infantry entered the compound to restore order, the prisoners attacked them with stones and improvised weapons. Order was quickly restored, but not before 56 prisoners had been killed and 91 injured, and 11 of the American guards injured. Only American troops were involved in the incident.
Major-General T. W. Herren, Commanding-General, Korean Communications Zone, and an investigating body of officers were at once flown to the island to make an investigation. Their report is not yet available.
In recent months the United Nations' Command have re-organised prisoners-of-war into smaller compounds. Discipline

generally throughout the camps has been improved.
British troops have not been taking part in prison guard duties in any prisoner-of-war camp in Korea since 10th July.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that discipline was good under Brigadier-General Boatner, who always allowed prisoners to celebrate their own national festivals, and so on, but that he was replaced by an inexperienced commander who gave the order that this day should not be celebrated; and is not the killing of 56 prisoners in a quarter of an hour a rather disproportionate use of force in retaliation for an attack by stone-throwing?

Mr. Eden: I think it is very difficult for this House to judge a matter of this kind, or what happened when the guards entered the camp, or what the state of the opposition was. An inquiry has been called for by the Americans concerned, and I think in fairness to our ally, we ought at least to await the outcome of the report, and not suppose that they must inevitably be in the wrong.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 1st October, the day on which the prisoners wished to demonstrate, was the Chinese national day; and does he know of anything in international law which would have justified the Nazis during the late war in shooting down prisoners who wanted to sing "God Save The King" on Empire Day?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman's parallel is an ingenious one, but I really think that until we have the report we are not in a position to judge precisely what happened. Had there been British troops concerned in this our position to demand a report would, of course, have been immediate and strong, but as things now are I think that we should await the report and not pass judgment on hearsay.

N.A.T.O. COUNCIL

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the Permanent Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Eden: Since its reorganisation, of which I gave the House an account on 28th February, the North Atlantic Council has made satisfactory progress in co-ordinating the joint efforts of the member countries in the defence, economic and political fields. Served by the new international secretariat, the Permanent Representatives, under the Chairmanship of Lord Ismay, the new Secretary-General, have held regular sessions about twice a week.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very full reply, may I ask him if he will continue to do his utmost to see that both the House and the public are kept informed of the work of this very important body, of which there is all too little knowledge in this country?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

H.M. Chargé d'Affaires

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position of Her Majesty's representative in Peking, with particular regard to the number of interviews he has had with the head of the Chinese People's Government and the Chinese Foreign Minister.

Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires is accepted in that capacity by the Chinese Government and, to quote their words, as "the British Government's negotiating representative." He has had interviews with the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs but not with the head of the Chinese Government or the Chinese Foreign Minister.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend for his assurance that until Her Majesty's representative is given full and proper recognition by the People's Government in China, and until that Government end their war of aggression in Korea, Her Majesty's Government will not in any way support the application of that Government for representation on the Security Council of the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: I think that does go rather wide of the Question, and I should like notice of it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Repeat it on Monday.

British Property (Requisitioning)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British property in China has been confiscated by the Communist authorities.

Mr. Eden: The present Chinese Government requisitioned certain property, equipment and buildings, belonging to two British firms, at Hankow, Chungking, and other ports in late 1950 and early 1951. In April, 1951, they requisitioned all the property of the Shell Company in China, with the exception of some office accommodation. In August, 1952, they requisitioned two British dockyards at Shanghai. Among other property taken over by the Chinese authorities is land belonging to the Shanghai and Tient-sin Race Course Companies and some privately-owned houses and building land.
Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has formally reserved all British rights and asked that compensation or rental shall be paid, except where the owners of the property did not wish this action to be taken.
No compensation has yet been paid, nor has any reply been sent to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires' notes.

Mr. Reid: What approximately is the value of all this property, which seems to be confiscated as no rent or compensation of any kind has been paid?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I do not know off-hand. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind putting a Question down I will give him a figure. I should not like to make a guess

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. CHARLES CHAPLIN (RE-ENTRY, U.S.A.)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that steps are being taken by the Government of the United States of America to revoke the re-entry permit granted to Mr. Charles Spencer Chaplin, a British citizen; and if he will make representations to that Government to allow Mr. Chaplin to re-enter the United States without let or hindrance.

Mr. Eden: The United States Attorney-General is reported to have instructed the United States immigration authorities to investigate whether Mr. Chaplin should be re-admitted. So far as I am aware,


no decision has yet been made known. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Proctor: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of his undertaking on the British passport, and in view of the announcement by the American authorities, he does not think some action should be taken by him; and if he feels that this British citizen may not be victimised by preferring to remain British rather than become American? Further to that, would the right hon. Gentleman consult with his colleagues to make sure no opportunity is lost of the British film industry availing itself of the services of Mr. Chaplin?

Mr. Eden: I think the last question goes quite a long way beyond the jurisdiction of the Foreign Secretary, and I suspect the other two do also. At the moment no action has been taken. Therefore, there cannot be any step called for by the Government.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to encourage British citizens to remain British citizens in their own country and not to seek domicile in other nations for lengthy periods without making up their minds whether they want to renounce British citizenship?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Herr Krupp (Compensation)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the decision was taken in principle to give Herr Krupp financial compensation for his industrial property; when the decision in principle was communicated by the American authorities to the British Government; and what communication was then made by the British Government to the American authorities on the subject.

Mr. Eden: I would ask the hon. Baronet to await a statement which I propose to make after Questions.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the case of Herr Alfried Krupp in reply to Question No. 37.
Alfried Krupp is the son of Gustav Krupp, who was arraigned as a major war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, but found unfit to plead. He succeeded his father as head of Krupps at the end of 1943.
Alfried Krupp, together with a number of other industrialists in the British Zone, was handed over towards the end of 1946 by the authority of the late Government to the United States authorities for trial in the American Zone War Crimes Court. He was tried and convicted in 1948 of having employed slave labour and of having plundered occupied territories. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and to confiscation of all his property. On the other hand, he was acquitted on charges of crimes against peace, and conspiracy.
In January, 1951, the American High Commissioner reviewed the sentence imposed by this American court. He decided to reduce Krupp's prison sentence to the six years already served and to revoke the confiscation of his property. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement on 12th February, 1951, the review of Krupp's sentence was entirely a matter for the American High Commissioner, who was under no obligation to consult His Majesty's Government.
In reviewing Krupp's sentence, the American High Commissioner found that this was the only case in which a war criminal had been sentenced to forfeiture of property—this was not done even in the case of Goering and Ribbentrop. He felt that confiscation in this instance was not justified by any special considerations attaching to Krupps.
Under an Allied High Commission Law of May, 1950, approved by His late Majesty's Government, the French Government and the United States Government, the whole German coal and steel industry was to be reorganised so as to break up excessive concentrations of economic power.
Under that Law, the Krupp coal and steel complex is being broken up into independent units; and an Order is to be issued under which Krupp will be compelled to sell his securities in the coal and steel companies. No provision was made under that Law by which Krupp's


holdings in these companies could be confiscated either in whole or in part.
On the contrary, in view of the decision to revoke the confiscation of Krupp's property, the effect of this Law was to provide him with compensation for all his holdings. No reliable estimate can yet be formed of the amount which the sale of Krupp's securities will realise but it will run into many millions. Needless to say this money will be drawn entirely from German sources.
So much for the past. As to the future, we are seeking to ensure that Herr Krupp shall not be allowed to use the proceeds of the sale of his holdings to buy his way back into the coal and steel industries or otherwise to acquire a controlling interest. The means of achieving this end are under discussion in Germany between the High Commission and the Federal Government.

Mr. C. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the restoration of this vast sum of money to this family, whose activities were of such assistance to Hitler and all his evil associates, has deeply shocked people everywhere? May I further ask him whether, in as much as this man was found guilty of using slave labour and of taking other people's property, it is not possible to divert some of this wealth to those people who have suffered, and, thirdly, in as much as the Peace Treaty has not yet been discussed, whether the activities of people such as this cannot be considered in connection with that Peace Treaty?

Mr. Eden: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that these decisions are not decisions recently taken. Herr Krupp was handed over by His late Majesty's Government in 1946—as long ago as that—for trial by the American authorities. They carried out the trial and they carried out the sentence, and they then reviewed the sentence as they are entirely entitled to do, and as each one of us is entitled to do in our respective zones. After that, by a law also passed under the late Government, compensation has to be paid where these expropriations are made. It does not lie within my power, in any circumstances, to say that this compensation is not to be paid now at this stage after all these laws have been passed which are actively taking effect. It is not remotely within my power.

Sir R. Acland: Although this decision is clearly one taken by the American authorities, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that, now that it is seen how it works out, we ought, in some way, to express our view that the restoration of so large a sum, to a man who has made it entirely out of war activities, must be an enormous discouragement to innumerable people who are being called upon to work and sacrifice, in order to safeguard us against another onslaught by totalitarians?

Mr. Eden: I think that the hon. Baronet has misunderstood. This compensation has been paid under the Allied High Commission law of May, 1950, passed as long ago as that, in the late Government's term of office. I have no power now suddenly to say that we are going to revoke the law passed at that time by all the Allies together.
In the second place, so far as the action of remitting the sentence is concerned, that was taken in January, 1951. The Prime Minister at that time, now the present Leader of the Opposition, said, absolutely rightly in my opinion, that he had no power, once the Americans had taken that decision. They were in their right to do it. Why we handed over Herr Krupp to the Americans to try is another matter. No doubt, at the time, we had good reasons; I do not know. The point is that this Allied arrangement was made long before this Government took office and no power rests with me, under the present law, suddenly to revoke something which has been carried on for all this long time.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not abundantly clear that full responsibility for all this rests fairly and squarely on the last Government?

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has said himself that His late Majesty's Government were not consulted about the events that took place, and the Americans were under no obligation to do so. Secondly, does he not think that while it is quite true that we cannot reverse the processes in the American zone, nevertheless, this case, which has shocked the whole of opinion in this country and in Europe, underlines the importance of taking whatever steps are possible to prevent the control of the


Ruhr industries getting back into the sort of hands they once were in?

Mr. Eden: I am in agreement with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and that is exactly what I am trying to do. In view of what has happened up-to-date, I do not want to make promises unless I am sure they can be carried out. [Interruption.] No, because when hon. Members opposite were in Government they allowed all this to develop and then their supporters attacked us for it in the public Press. I am very anxious, but I am not prepared to give all sorts of guarantees unless I am sure. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that our purpose is to carry out the last part of his supplementary question. I have only explained what has happened in the past because of attacks made upon us, without any justification, for actions taken by the late Government.

Mr. Bellenger: Does it not still lie within the province of the German Government, if they want to, to nationalise the coal and steel undertakings?

Mr. Eden: Certainly it lies within their power to do that, and, of course, it equally lies in their power to levy taxes. That is entirely for them. Equally, there is the question of pensions, which, I understand, Herr Krupp is called upon to meet to the extent of nearly £1 million a year. All that is for the Germans. What I am trying to explain to the House is what our remaining powers are as a result of what has happened.

Mr. C. Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we are not blaming him or the previous Government? I am anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will see if something can be done, either now or in the Peace Treaty, to deal with this matter. It is not a question of awarding blame but of whether something can actually be done.

Mr. Eden: I am not trying to award blame. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member has only to read the attacks made by Members of his own party over this business in the last few months. We have been attacked consistently by some of the Left Wing Press for something we have not done. Actually the whole of this arises from something

done by the late Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—yes—and I think much of it was inevitable because, once Krupp was handed over for the Americans to deal with, there was no way out of the situation. If they are not to blame, neither are we in this matter.
All I can say is that, so far as I can judge from the powers now remaining, I do not think there is any action we can take except on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). Those are the lines on which we are now working—to see that this situation does not arise again.

Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. I have risen several times to put a supplementary question. A direct charge was made about what happened under my administration in this particular case Am I not entitled to reply to it?

Mr. Speaker: I will bear that in mind, but we cannot debate this very much longer.

Mr. Paget: Is not the trouble here that we did not put Herr Krupp on trial because we were advised that the criminal charges against him were purely bogus, that the Americans have now come to the same conclusion and that now, therefore, it is not very easy to treat him differently from anybody else?

Mr. Eden: I really do not know why we did not put him on trial but handed him over to the Americans. I do not know.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly tried to suggest—I do not suggest this unfairly—that this is something that has been done under the Allied Control law when the previous Government were in office—I am sure he does not wish to mislead the House—will he not find out and tell the House that that law did not make any provision for payment of compensation to Herr Krupp and that the compensation provided for in that law was only in cases where anyone charged with a war crime had been released? That has been done in the American Zone since. There is no provision in that law for compensation for war criminals.

Mr. Eden: I am advised that once Herr Krupp was exculpated, as he was by the American action, of course compensation fell due to him as to anyone else—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the matter further. I will call Mr. Eric Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Eden: He would be bought out like anyone else.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the reason why the American High Commissioner did not confirm the sentence of confiscation was that if he had confirmed it we should never have been able to keep the Krupp assets but would have had to divide them with Soviet Russia?

Mr. Eden: I have not seen that.

Dr. Linse (Kidnapping)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the fate of Dr. Walter Linse, the West German lawyer, who was kidnapped in Berlin in July, 1952, and taken to the East German Soviet zone.

Mr. Eden: I regret that there is no information available as to the fate of Dr. Linse.

EGYPT (CONVERSATIONS)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in Egypt as regards British interests affected.

Mr. Eden: Since General Neguib became Prime Minister he has had a number of meetings with Her Majesty's Ambassador on matters affecting British interests. These discussions are still continuing, but I should prefer to make no statement at the present time.

Sir R. Acland: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement on the subject during the present Session? Would it pin him down too tightly to say that?

Mr. Eden: I think so. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, there are conversations going on about the Sudan and other matters and I should like them to reach a certain stage before I make a statement.

Sir R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman not at this stage comment on that aspect of General Neguib's

activities by which he has obliged political parties to publicise the source of their finances?

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RESOLUTIONS)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that none of the resolutions adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg will be regarded as having any effect on the policy of this country until they have been debated in Parliament and any legislation arising out of them embodied in our Statute Laws.

Mr. Eden: Parliament will be consulted in the usual way if decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe were to involve some significant modification of policy or new legislation in this country.

Sir H. Williams: Will not the alleged representatives of this Parliament who voted at Strasbourg make a report to this House which did not appoint them?

Mr. Eden: They go, as I understand it, in a personal capacity, and the reports are furnished to the Committee of Ministers.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the fact that Members of the party opposite fully supported the resolution concerning the full integration and co-ordination of European transport, do the Government propose to drop the Transport Bill?

Major Legge-Bourke: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's original reply, may I ask him whether he will now apply the same principle to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which has never yet been ratified?

Mr. Eden: I should like to see that one on the Paper.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could we have an answer to my hon. Friend's question? I gather that representatives of the party opposite did urge the integration and co-ordination of European transport. Cannot the Foreign Secretary, or the Deputy Prime Minister, tell us whether this very, very far-reaching proposal is not to be operated in the much more limited sphere of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Eden: If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to put that on the Paper I should be delighted to reply to it.

FOREIGN OFFICE LECTURERS, U.S.A.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who have been sponsored by Her Majesty's Government as lecturers in the United States of America during the current year; and whom it is proposed to send to that country before the end of 1952.

Mr. Eden: The speakers who have already visited the United States under the sponsorship of the Foreign Office this year under the 1951–52 season's programme are Lord Balfour of Inchrye, Mr. Paul Bareau, Lord Lawson, Miss Nancy Adam, Dr. Roger Manvell, Lord Wilmot and Sir Olaf Caroe. Arrangements have been made for Lord Winterton and Sir Reader Bullard to undertake lecture tours in the United States between November and the end of the current year.

Mr. Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary really think that this is a representative delegation? Does he consider that the former Father of this House, Lord Winterton, is really representative of opinion in this country at the present time?

Mr. Eden: As a matter of fact, some of these representatives were chosen by the late Government. I should have thought that as a whole they were a fairly good cross-section. As Lord Winterton is going to lecture on Parliamentary procedure and practice, I should have thought he would be rather good at it.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state what arrangements are being made for an Imperial Economic Conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement of 29th July about the arrangements for the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London in the last week of November for the purpose of reviewing major issues of financial, commercial and economic policy. The preparatory discussions between officials of Commonwealth countries opened in London on 22nd September. They are expected to be concluded this week, when the delegations

will report to their respective Governments.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will seek to urge upon Her Majesty's Governments in other parts of the Commonwealth a greater reliance upon our own resources and our own trade, and consequently less need to rely upon dollar trade which is so difficult to secure?

The Prime Minister: It seems to me inconceivable that these discussions should take place without some consideration being borne in mind about the dollar exchange.

Mr. Beswick: Would the Prime Minister arrange for a debate in this House of the matters to be discussed at this conference; and would he not find that public opinion, both here and in the Commonwealth, is far in advance of officials' views and those of the official Governments?

The Prime Minister: Questions about Business should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

PACIFIC DEFENCE PACT

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister why the United Kingdom was not represented at the meeting of the Pacific Council, having regard to the important defence interests of the British Colonial Empire in the Pacific.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).

PERSIA (OIL DISPUTE)

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a short statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Persian oil dispute.
On 30th August joint proposals for a solution of the dispute were communicated to Dr. Musaddiq by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. The Persian reply to these proposals was received on 24th September.


It contained, in addition to a counterproposal which offered no hope of a solution, many inaccurate statements which showed that the joint proposals had not been correctly understood by the Persian Government.
I therefore sent a message to the Persian Prime Minister on 4th October, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, with the object of correcting these misunderstandings. Mr. Acheson sent a similar message on behalf of President Truman.
In spite of these messages the Persian Government, on 7th October, repeated their counter-proposal, and in some ways misrepresented what I had said by way of clarification of the joint proposals. All these communications are being laid before the House and will be available to hon. Members this afternoon.
In the meantime, I would inform the House that Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, acting on instructions, last night delivered a Note to the Persian Government placing the views of Her Majesty's Government on record in terms of which the following is a summary.

First: H.M. Government and the A.I.O.C. accept the nationalisation of the Persian Oil industry as a fact, but in return H.M. Government claim just compensation on behalf of the Company.

Secondly: H.M. Government consider that the question of compensation should be referred to the impartial adjudication of the International Court.

Thirdly: H.M. Government claim compensation on behalf of the A.I.O.C. for the unilateral termination of the 1933 Concession Agreement contrary to the explicit undertaking in the Agreement that it will not be so terminated.

Fourthly: Neither H.M. Government nor the A.I.O.C. seek to revive the 1933 Concession Agreement in any other respect.

Fifthly: As soon as agreement is reached as to the terms on which the question of compensation is to be adjudicated, the A.I.O.C. will be ready to open negotiations as indicated in the joint proposals. As already stated, neither H.M.G. nor the A.I.O.C. insist on the Company securing a monopoly of the purchase of Persian oil.

Sixthly: Pending agreement as to the terms on which the question of compensation is to be adjudicated, H.M. Government on their own behalf and on behalf of the A.I.O.C. reserve their full legal rights.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statement he has made is broadly continuing the policy of the late Government with regard to Persia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes. Therefore, in general, I think it can be taken that we agree with the statement he has made. May I add that we would express the hope that reason may yet come into the minds of the Persian Government, particularly of its Prime Minister, and that an amicable settlement may be reached on this matter?

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged for the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, whatever the reasons for it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'Clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Third Reading read.

3.47 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The earlier stages of this Bill have produced many imaginative flights into the controversial stratosphere and therefore it is opportune, I think, to use the pedestrian last lap of the Third Reading to remind the House that it is a short, practical Measure to deal with a limited, although important point. Its contents constitute our solution to the problem that faced us at the outset when we had to make the choice of putting State management into effect in the new towns or of changing the policy and ensuring that licensed premises, like other facilities in the new towns, were provided in the ordinary way by the usual people.
I have explained more than once why effect had to be given to this decision at once so that the planning and development of the new towns should go on without impediment or hindrance. This Bill embodies our conviction that State management in the new towns was a mistake. We made our views clear during the passage of the Act of 1949, and we have nothing to change in them. This is not the occasion to go into them again, but it is the occasion to emphasise that, by preventing State management, the Bill does away with two things: first of all, the setting up of a fresh administrative structure, and secondly, the expending of substantial sums of public money. It repeals a Measure which we believe is both unpopular and unjustified by the facts, it gets rid of expenditure and it allows private enterprise, subject to appropriate public control, to provide the licensed premises.
If the Bill were not passed and the repeal it contains not enacted, there would remain imposed on the new towns measures which are out of proportion to the needs of good planning, are experimental and are unwanted. The Bill proposes that the general scheme operating in

the country should apply to the new towns but subject to adaptations which are necessary for two purposes: first, to meet the practical needs of the new towns, and secondly, to give the development corporations a share of the responsibilities to which, in our opinion, their special functions and duties entitle them.
I should like to make it clear about the contents of the Bill that there is nothing in it which involves any present to the liquor trade of money arising out of public development. The development of the new towns will give many forms of private enterprise new opportunities to which they are entitled; but an important aspect which must be remembered is that the Bill will result in substantial financial benefit to the development corporations themselves. They can lease land for public houses, or they can build themselves and ensure that a fair share of the profits that arise inure to the corporations, such as was impossible under State management. In addition, the State will get a fair share in taxation.
I want to emphasise the point that there is no distinction between the licensed trade and other forms of private enterprise. The Section of the 1949 Act which is repealed by Clause 1 of this Bill did not seek to nationalise all forms of free enterprise. It was not based on the assertion that public development should never lead to private profit. The reason advanced was sound planning. This Bill is also designed to secure sound planning, but in what we think is a different and more practical way, for we believe that planning is essentially and fundamentally a local matter which ought to be entrusted to local bodies. This Bill provides the machinery needed to secure, first, that these bodies function harmoniously and effectively; and secondly, that local public opinion is given an opportunity for expression.
I want to make it clear that the Bill does not take the form of repealing the 1949 Act and putting nothing in its place except the ordinary licensing law. As the point has been raised in discussion once or twice, I think it is proper that I should say a word as to why we have not taken this course. The difficulties were the overlapping jurisdictions of the licensing authorities and the development corporations, and the lack of machinery for co-ordinating them. Everyone appreciates that the development corporations have


the duty of ensuring proper development in the new towns in every respect—I repeat "in every respect"—and, therefore, they must concern themselves with the provision of licensed premises.
The provision of licensed premises, however, is also the responsibility of the licensing justices, and I want to return to a most interesting aspect of that which was first developed yesterday by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and taken up in turn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I entirely agree with the point which they stressed, that the licensing justices must act judicially. I think I am putting it correctly when I say that they can have a general policy for their area, but they cannot consult with another body about a particular case before they hear and determine judicially an application for a licence.
Without the provisions of this Bill, it will not be open to the development corporation and the licensing justices to discuss in any detail the planning of licensed premises in a new town; but the Bill deals with this situation and provides the necessary means of co-ordination. Both bodies retain the powers of which I have just spoken, and the Bill ensures that they are exercised in harmony and in the best interests of the new towns.
I should like to follow that up, because I want to take up a point about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields was good enough to ask me yesterday. In dealing with it, may I begin by showing how the machinery will work and then come to his point as to how it will deal with existing licences? In practice, the steps will follow in this way. First of all, the development corporation will take into consideration the planning of the part of the new town due for development. They will have in mind many other things, including the number of licensed premises that they deem necessary. The development corporation will take their plans to the committee established under this Bill with suggestions as to licensed premises, and the subject will be discussed with the representatives of the development corporation and the justices. In the committee, plans will be fully discussed and modified, if necessary, both in regard to sites and as to the type of accommodation, services and amenities to be provided at the premises.
Then the plan will be published for public consideration and there will be an opportunity for objection. If necessary there will be a local inquiry, and, finally, the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm, reject or modify the proposals. Thereafter, after the planning steps have been taken, the development corporation, as part of their general duty, will take practical steps to ensure that the committee's confirmed proposals are put into effect; but it will be open to the development corporation themselves to build the premises and let them or—what I think will more frequently happen—invite bids for the leases of sites on which private enterprise may build. In each case, of course, the site, the building, and so on, must be in accordance with the committee's proposals.
In either case, the development corporation will get the best terms for themselves and for their new town. Their choice is not restricted to brewers. I do not want to make a bad point, for I envisage that it will be brewers in a large majority of cases. I do not want to suggest anything else. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Shields will not misunderstand me. Of course, the choice is not restricted. In a suitable case the corporation could get a Trust House or an individual if they wanted to do it. It will be for them to make the choice and to serve the best interests of the new town. It is their duty to find a suitable tenant and to comply with the requirements as to providing amenities.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "it is their duty" to ensure that there is a good tenant. Whom does he mean by "their"?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The development corporation. After the planning stager the development corporation then carry the plan into effect. It will be for them to make the choice as to who will carry out the actual physical work.
I now come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to put to me yesterday. What is to happen under our proposals about existing licensed premises in the new towns? It is a question of some importance, and we considered it carefully in framing the Bill. It would be useful if we looked for a moment at the nature and size of the problem. As I think I have previously


informed the House, there are altogether 205 on-licences of all kinds in all the new towns in England, Wales and Scotland. Of these, 55 are in Hemel Hempstead, 25 in Stevenage, 22 in Hatfield, 23 in Cwmbran, 19 in Harlow, 17 in Bracknell and 16 in Crawley. The number in any other new town is less than 10. I understand that the great majority of these existing on-licences belong to small public houses.
On the face of it, these figures suggest redundancy in Hemel Hempstead and the possibility of some redundancy in Stevenage, Hatfield and Cwmbran. Again, I hope I shall not be misunderstood, since I speak of the figures alone and do not pretend to the special local knowledge which would be necessary to decide this point. In the other new towns I have named, with fewer than 20 licences apiece, any redundancy must be on a small scale. One must always remember that practically all those licences have been in force for many years, presumably doing an economic trade, and have not been extinguished under the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1910, for the elimination of superfluous licences.
The next question we have to ask ourselves is: What will be the effect on those licences of the development of the new towns? Circumstances will vary with each particular case but, broadly speaking, it is manifest that the general tendency will be for any existing redundancy to be diminished rather than increased as the result of the growth of the town. I want to face the question which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. Assuming that some problem of redundancy remains, what can be done about it? One can either remove the redundant licence to another site where there is need for a licence, or can suppress it against compensation.
The provisions of the Bill have been framed so as to allow of removal wherever it is appropriate. We fully expect that, in connection with the work on the new towns, negotiations will take place between the development corporations and the owners of existing licensed premises with a view to removal of superfluous existing licences to new sites. I do not think I am doing the licensing justices as a whole an injustice, and I am certainly not saying anything which is not strictly accurate about the benches

that I personally know best, those in South-West Lancashire, when I describe the procedure that was followed there. I do not know whether this procedure was followed by the bench of which the right hon. Gentleman was so distinguished a member, but it was certainly followed in my experience.
When brewers suggested the removal of a licence, especially that of a small and decaying public house, it was quite clearly conveyed to them, at any rate in Lancashire and in the direct way that we have in those parts, that if they came for the removal of that house without offering the extinction of one or two other licences, their chances of getting the removal would be very small. Whether that was strictly judicial or not, it was a procedure followed with the utmost good faith by the licensing justices. It had the result in many areas of producing a voluntary re-distribution of licensed houses in accordance with the changes of population.

Mr. Leslie Hale: One of my difficulties, as I mentioned in Committee, relates to the position of licensing justices. As I understand the matter, the development corporation approach the committee and submit plans which the committee have the right to decide on, and to ignore the development corporation, who have their selected members on the committee—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Their representatives.

Mr. Hale: These persons need not be members of the development corporation, but there must be members of the licensing justices. The development corporation do not appoint their own members. Subject to appeal to the Minister, the site is agreed and the development corporation fix the terms. One of those terms may possibly be the surrender of some existing licence. That need not be, and in many cases cannot be done, by application for special removal because it might be cancelling a licence of a different type or two or three small licences. Under Clause 4, the licensing justices have no power at all. If they are satisfied that the terms are suitable and that the applicant is suitable, they must grant the application, irrespective of the conditions and of the terms. I do not know how it is intended that these provisions should work.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is what I was trying to explain. I willingly recapitulate as shortly as I can, in order to make the point clear to the hon. Member. I have explained the various planning stages. The committee stage is important because, under Clause 3 as we have now altered it, that is the stage at which we establish the site, the kind of house, the amenities and the provisions which have to go with the house. At that stage the licensing justices have agreed to the kind of house which will be allowed.
At the next stage the development corporation will begin to negotiate. At that stage, of course, the terms of the building lease or the tenancy—if they build themselves—will be a matter of contract. At that stage it would be quite possible that, instead of the premium on the lease being £x thousand, it should be £x minus £y thousand, £y being represented by the extinction value of the licence of another house.

Mr. Hale: May I interrupt again, because this is most important? The development corporation have reached this stage, I agree, and brewery A says, "We are prepared to surrender two or three existing licences as part of this, and so, instead of paying so much in terms, we shall expect them to be reduced." Then another applicant says, "I am prepared to pay the terms." Then the development corporation say, "We recommend it should go to brewery A or to applicant B," and then they go to the licensing justices and brewery A makes an application. Under the existing law, applicant B is also entitled to make an application. Is he not to be heard at all? Is no one else able to go to the licensing justices and say, "I want my rights under the law"?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No; that is the point. I am sorry if I have not made it clear to the hon. Gentleman. That is the change: the licensing justices constitute 50 per cent. of the committee and they are on the committee in order to bring to it their experience and knowledge gained as licensing justices. Therefore, the committee will decide the kind of house that is necessary and it will then be a matter for the development corporation, who have the planning of the town in mind, to consider whether they will accept the extinction of the licence, because it is not the removal of the second licence but

its extinction that is being considered, and it is the duty of the committee to see that the plans which they are putting forward provide for the reasonable supply of licensed premises to the towns.
I am not avoiding the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. I face it. I say that it is a matter for the Committee to decide in order to get analogous results to those which I mentioned have often been obtained by licensing benches within my knowledge, I do not think there is any practical difficulty.

Mr. Ede: This is a complicated matter. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. I shall try to deal with it, as I see it, when I make some observations in reply to what he is now saying. I shall understand if he wants to interrupt me to explain that I have not quite understood what he is saying. That is something which I must put up with.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Unless one has the background, not only of licensing law but of licensing practice, it is a difficult matter. I have done my best, but I am conscious that there may be defects in my exposition—I am always conscious of that—and I accept with great cordiality the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, should it become necessary.
That is the way in which we believe we can get in the new towns a large measure of the re-distribution of licences which may be necessary. That is one method. There is the other simple method which I mentioned of the extinction of unwanted licences. It might well have happened, apart altogether from this controversy, that a development corporation wanted to extinguish a licence in order to divert that part of the land of the corporation to other purposes. That would simply be a matter of bargaining, of paying for the licence value. The advantage which I suggest this method gets is that if they want to do that they can recoup themselves, at any rate to some extent, from the premium on the lease or the rent they will get for the new premises.
Of course, there is the third possibility, which I have not mentioned but which will be in the minds of all hon. Members, that licensed premises may become redundant in the ordinary way and be


dealt with by the provisions for compensation for redundant licences under the Act of 1910.
Therefore, we expect that the development of the new towns will of itself act as a strong stimulus towards the re-distribution of existing licences, and the committees to be set up under the Act will, of course, take account of any existing licensed premises in deciding what new premises are needed. It may be thought by some right hon. or hon. Gentlemen that we should have gone further and proposed that the committees should be given specific powers to require, as opposed to expedite, the removal or extinction of existing licences. That course would have raised difficult questions of compensation and, from the background which I have described, I do not think that the practical problem is so great as to justify drastic proposals of that kind.
I cannot leave this part of the Bill—where I have been dealing with practical matters—without expressing my appreciation of the help, the very real help, received from the Opposition in working out the practical details. I do not expect any quarter for saying this, but I should not like to let the occasion pass without saying it. When we got away from the sterile, controversial irrelevancies of certain stages—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which were they?"] I only put it in this way, that certain portions of our argument did not differ from the classic comment on the mule: they had great pride of ancestry but they had no hope of posterity. I want to turn to the later portion where we had frequent exchanges of ideas on practical questions which were very fruitful because we saw the fruits of that exchange added to the Bill yesterday.
I believe there is no disagreement as to the need to ensure that any new public house in the new towns should be of a high standard. None of us wants a return to what were called "drinking shops"; we all want a worthy contribution to the communal life of these new towns. The Amendments made yesterday to Clause 3, which were as much the product of Opposition as of Government ideas, serve to give the committees clearer directions as to the matters to be considered. I believe it was said from opposite yesterday that the new Clause about

temporary licensed premises gives faithful effect to the conclusions of the Committee as a whole without distinction of party. There, again, one saw that the practical discussions were concerned exclusively with what would be best for the new towns.
There are just one or two points which I want to make clear, and then I shall have done. There is nothing in the Bill which will increase the number of licensed premises beyond what would be provided under any other method of securing their existence. Secondly, it is important for everyone to understand that there is nothing in the Bill to give the building of licensed premises any special priority. The number and rate of production will remain the same and, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows, there is an established machinery for establishing priorities between the rival claims on building resources and awarding starting dates for building. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields said yesterday in discussing one of the Amendments, licensed premises—if I may paraphrase his words—have to take their place in the queue in the ordinary way.
I also do not think there is any difference between us and the party opposite on the need, or the scale or the sort of licensed premises to be provided. I am sure that we agree on the importance of developing the new towns as balanced communities with all these necessary amenities. We agree on the need to provide new towns with suitable licensed accommodation. We agree on the need for preventing undue delay between the arrival of the population and the provision of the accommodation.
This Bill is concerned with the only question at issue between us—who should provide that accommodation? On this our division is sharp and I fully understand the differences of viewpoint. We, for our part, believe that the Bill is right in providing that private enterprise should make provision of licensed premises. We believe that the measure of public control provided by the Bill is sufficient and is in the right hands; and we believe that the interests of the new towns and their people are better served in this way.
On these things our belief is clear and firmly based but, as I have said, on the other points as to the number and type


and the kind of amenities which these premises will provide I am glad that there is a measure of agreement. I hope that it will be the enduring duty which we feel on all of us to see that the high standards to which we have set our voices in this debate are never debased.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Ede: A few minutes ago I really began to wonder what all the trouble had been about. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill and when we started the Committee's proceedings upstairs, had then shown the same temperament, a great deal of the most disagreeable Committee work that I have had to do in this House would have been avoided.
He started by saying that the Bill that he was introducing on Second Reading was what the Government intended to have. Well, it is not now quite the Bill that it then was. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that in the later stages, at any rate, we have dealt with some of the general problems concerned with licensing in a way that I hope will make the work of establishing licences in the new towns an example of what ought to be done in other areas.
But that does not mitigate in any way our feeling that the method which we proposed in the 1949 Act would have been a better way of dealing with the problem. It is not to be taken that if the Government carry this Bill through this House and hurry it through, as they will this evening, by 7.15 p.m., and then get it through another place, we regard this as the final solution of the problem that is presented.
We had the advantage in the Committee of very considerable assistance from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and it was my regret that yesterday he almost withdrew from our discussion and in fact only rose to certain bait that was thrown out to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, of course, is an expert angler on such occasions. I really hope that this does not mean that the hon. Member for Wokingham feels that his great contribution to the licensed trade of the country now has almost reached a stage when it will receive its

usual due reward of a call to another place.
We should have missed him in the Committee, and yesterday we even enjoyed his benign smile, although we had few of those words of wisdom that so helped us upstairs. After all, I understand that he has a strong connection with Ind Coope and Allsopp. When the first Lord Hindlip was created out of Sir Henry Allsopp, he wrote indignantly to "The Times" to say that it was wrong to say that he was a brewer, because he had given up brewing. I hope that it will be a long time before the hon. Member for Wokingham has to make such a complaint. I might say that that will not induce me to drink any of his concoctions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary dealt in considerable detail with the problem that had worried me throughout the proceedings and which still gives me cause for concern. That is the problem of the existing licensee. I am quite certain that a very great deal of the opposition to the proposals that we put forward was concentrated round the fact that the existing licensee was nearly bound to suffer. I think that that was directly put to us as a result of what we were proposing.
I went a very considerable distance in order to remove those fears by saying that in any new houses that were provided in the new towns the existing licensee of any licence that became redundant or had to be removed should receive the first consideration in the appointments made to the new houses. He gets no such guarantee under this Bill, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he hopes that the Bill will be a strong stimulus to re-distribution. In spite of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch said yesterday about the strength of beer, one expects, of course, to have strong stimulus in connection with any consideration of the subject which we are discussing today.
I hope that the steps that we took to safeguard the position of the existing licensees will be borne in mind by those who, I think, in the main will be the persons who will get the leases of the new sites, when they come to deal with the employment that they are to offer. It is not in the Statute, but they expressed such


lively concern when it was thought that those persons now related with them might be related with someone else that I hope sincerely that, under the new arrangements in this Bill, they will see also, no matter how strong the stimulus to re-distribution will be, that the existing licensees will be borne in mind.
I now come to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the existing licensee. As far as I could follow what he said—any failure on my part to follow him was my fault and not his, because he obviously made a most sincere effort to give us a clear and revealing exposition of what the position would be—my apprehensions are not diminished. This is the history that he gave us. Before his new committee considers the proposals, the development corporation and the owners of the existing licences would have negotiations with each other. When they have come to some form of agreement, they would take that agreement to the new committee for consideration, and there they would meet not merely representatives but members of the licensing justices. Then the new committee would reach a decision one way or the other on the agreement that had been arrived at between the development corporation and the owners of the existing licence.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: What I said was that at the first stage the development corporation would make their preliminary survey of the planning of that part of the new town. That might or might not—I do not say that it would—necessitate preliminary negotiations with the owners of the houses. It might come at that stage or it might come at the second stage when they had brought their draft plans to the committee.

Mr. Ede: Let us take the ordinary run of things. Presumably they would desire that when their plan went to the committee it should represent agreement as nearly as possible, or, at any rate, they should know what would be the likely views of the owner of the licence. I do not think that is an unfair way of regarding the working negotiation rather than any set rules which might be laid down.
At any rate, whichever way it happens, a decision is reached by the committee with regard to the way the licence is

dealt with, and some members of the licensing committee of the district established under later Sections of the Act of 1949 come to consider the matter, and they give an expression of opinion as part of the view expressed by the committee, and then the licensing committee reach a decision. As I understand it, once that decision has been confirmed when the scheme is put forward, it becomes binding on the justices. It was established by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that at that stage the licensing justices have no power to vary what has been decided by the committee, certainly as to the location and nature of the licence; all they are concerned with is the suitability of the applicant.
I hope that represents a correct statement of what transpires at that stage. That was precisely the danger that I pointed out last night. It makes me hope all the more that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find an opportunity, when the Bill is considered in another place, to have some regard to the alternative procedure which was proposed in the Amendment moved yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded today, and on which he gave us no pledge yesterday except that he would consider the matter.
I view with great disfavour the sort of arrangements which he suggests are made in the part of the country where he used to practise. The kind of understanding between a bench and an applicant in front of a bench that, in addition to what appears on the surface of things, something outside is also understood is a very undesirable form of the administration of justice.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, but I was referring to the practice in Lancashire 15 to 20 years ago. There was no disguising it. The matter was brought out openly, and fully disclosed to the licensing justices, the Press and the public. There was nothing behind the scenes; it was done in open court. That makes a difference to one's feelings about it.

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, but what really happens is that the licensing justices virtually impose a condition which they cannot enforce at law. People who have to


administer justice have to be very careful how far they put themselves into that position. I have known some borough councils which wanted to improve a street corner on which there was a public house. By some means which are unknown to me but are very effective, they arranged that the licence became redundant and the compensation came from the compensation fund. Then the street improvement went through, and instead of the rates having to bear the cost of compensation, it came from the compensation fund.
I fear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the opposite will occur here. He said that, if such a condition were accepted by both sides, one or two redundant licences would be suppressed and that would result in a smaller payment being made on the premium for the lease, which would mean that the development corporation would be paying for the suppression of the redundant licences which I believe ought to be compensated out of the statutory compensation fund.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did not say "redundant." I said that they would probably be decaying licences. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman had to see somebody behind Mr. Speaker's Chair when I was dealing with that.

Mr. Ede: I have been here all the time. I have not moved.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had moved. I dealt with the matter separately. I said there was a strong possibility that redundant licences would be dealt with in the ordinary way by the compensation fund under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman will find that I said that.

Mr. Ede: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at some stage or other that in some case or other there would be a reduction of the premium on the lease because more than one licence had been surrendered in order that a removal might take place. That does not seem to me to alter the case very much. Why should the development corporation pay compensation for the extinction of a decaying licence? I do not follow that either. I should have thought that a decaying licence was a very small asset either to the brewer or to the licensee.

I am not at all sure that they ought not in some cases to pay the development corporation a little for giving them an easy get-out from a position that would be becoming almost intolerable.
I am bound to say that the more I consider this matter the more I am persuaded that this arrangement by which the licensing justices appear at so early a stage, and commit themselves before a judicial hearing, is one which we on this side of the House could not support. I sincerely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that, in doing that, we accept for the moment, for this Bill only, the fact that licensing planning is to be the basis of the future arrangement.
I would ask the Home Secretary whether, before he pushes the Bill through the other place at a speed even greater than that at which he pushed it through here in its later stages, he will see if he can do something to remove the difficulties which confront me, and which I assure him I put forward solely in the interests of good administration of the licensing law and the preservation of the impartial position of the licensing benches.
I wish to deal with one other matter. I am bound to say that I gained the impression, from an early interview that I had with the licensed trade, that they had agreed on a scheme by which each new town would be regarded as the province of an individual brewing firm. They assure me that I misunderstood them, and I accept their word. It is now a long time ago, and in recent months I have, of course, been speaking from memory and not with the advantage of consultation with the documents.
I am told that what really happened is as follows, and I think it is still symptomatic of the way in which this particular trade views the problems which we have been considering. The London brewers went to see the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire brewers, and said, "You are to have in your areas a lot of the population that will come from our area, and you will have to provide licences for the people whom we used to serve. Therefore, we think that you should agree with us that some of the licences in the area should be given to us, and that you little boys should not have all the cake that we big boys used to eat."
One can well imagine that little boys always have bigger appetites than big boys, and this approach was not received with very great friendliness by the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire brewers, and the scheme broke down. Although it was said that I was told that they could arrange an allocation, no such arrangement was ever made.
I wish to make it quite clear that that is their explanation of the incident. It does not seem to me that it varies very much from what I have always suspected, that they think that the allocation of these licences is a matter for them to arrange, and that it can be done quite well outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
That brings me to another point which I wish to ask the Home Secretary. In the event of there being no bids for these sites at the figures which the development corporation think right, what does he propose that they should do? It was a point which I always had very much in mind. The Home Secretary is taking away the power whereby he could step in and deal with such a situation. How does he think such a situation could be met if in any area the brewers got together, and said, "In view of the prices they are asking for the sites, we are not playing"?
We all agree that we desire to see adequate and appropriate provision made, but the Home Secretary has left himself in a position which merits his consideration. We all admit that it is almost impossible to imagine anyone other than a brewery, with its financial resources behind it, or the State, being able to deal with the situation which the new towns will present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite frank on the occasion of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, in which he took such a prominent part during the war, when he said, when asked about free houses, "There will be nothing but tied houses under these schemes." That is a point which I think he will be well advised to consider, and I hope that either later today or in another place we may hear what sanction the right hon. and learned Gentleman reserves to himself in order to ensure that these schemes shall be implemented.
As I said in opening my remarks, we prefer the method which we had in the

1949 Act. We do not share the views of some people who think that the Carlisle experiment has been a failure. We believe that the Carlisle experiment has been a success. It has certainly enabled very considerable improvement to be made in the licensed premises of an important area. It has stood the test of competition in those towns in which some licences are held by the State management authority and some by private individuals.
There are fair-sized towns, like Mary-port and Wigton in Cumberland, to mention only two which come into my mind, where there has never been a monopoly. The Home Secretary may recollect that when we were considering the 1949 Act, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) had published in the "Daily Telegraph" an article in which he said that "Gracie's Banking" was a most desirable licensed establishment but that the beer was "off." When I asked him if he had drunk it, he said "Yes." He was then somewhat surprised to hear that "Gracie's Banking," although a public house under the State management scheme, did not take a single drop of State beer, and that the beer he was complaining about was that provided by private enterprise brewers, and—

Mr. John MacLeod: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in the area of Ross and Cromarty, which I represent, there is a complete monopoly by the State, and no private enterprise has ever been allowed to come into that area and compete with the State-owned enterprises?

Mr. Ede: Certainly that is so in the case of the properties there. I spent a considerable time going round the Ross and Cromarty area, and I thought that the hotels there looked better than any I had stayed in on this side of the Border. I wish I could spend every holiday in Ross and Cromarty at the hotel I stayed at. But any house which has a demand for any type of beer can get it.
When I went into a little public house in a place called Culbokie, the licensee said to me, when he showed me a shelf of Younger's Oatmeal Stout, "I only wish I could get treble the quantity." And he could not get it because the brewers would not give it to him.

Mr. MacLeod: The right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt with the point,


I agree entirely with him there, but it still remains a fact that I could not go and open up in that area. There is no competition at all. There are no licences anywhere in that area—[Interruption.]—not in that area. Nobody has ever been allowed to go into it and compete with the State-owned public houses.

Mr. Ede: Neither could the hon. Member go into the licensing area where I am chairman of the licensing committee, because we should expect to see three good testimonials.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Did the right hon. Gentleman convey the burden of that complaint to his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) who has considerable influence with Youngers Brewery?

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman was my Under-Secretary of State at the time, and we had no secrets between us. I can only hope that the passing of the information had beneficial results. I go no further than that.
Let us face this: the Measure we proposed was, in my view, the best way of dealing with this problem. It avoided all the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has frankly faced this afternoon and explained the way he thinks they will work out. I have given him my reasons, based to some extent on practical experience of the licensing problem from a less remunerative angle than his when he was gaining his experience. We think that the Measure now proposed will involve very great difficulties for the licensing justices. It will make their task in these new towns very difficult.
There is no real means of securing that effective local public feeling can make itself felt in the preliminary stages, which was the point of the Amendment of my hon. Friend yesterday. We still hope that on some of these points the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the further considerations of this Bill elsewhere, will be able to do something to remove the difficulties we have pointed out; but we must not be taken as accepting the view that in the new towns the proposals he puts forward are so nearly as good as ours as to enable us to regard this as a solution of this difficult problem.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: It is no wish of mine in any way to impede the passage of this Bill, but yesterday the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked whether I would be willing to come forward and explain the point of view which might be held in East Kilbride, which is in my constituency. It was later suggested by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) that I was not very interested in the matter.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling yesterday asked:
… who, in Scotland, wants this Bill? Who has made any representations to the Government? What justification have the Government for changing the law in Scotland? We have never been told that anybody in Scotland supports the Bill. I have never heard of anyone who particularly wants the Scottish new towns opened up to the old trade, and I should very much like to know whether there is any evidence of anybody having been asked, in reference to this Bill, what should be done in our new towns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 100–1.]
I hope to be able to answer that rather long question which, incidentally, was not answered by the hon. Member for Fife, West, who could only contribute to the discussion the suggestion that I was disinterested, and the further point that
… if a mandate were asked of the people of Glenrothes I am certain that they would all opt for public ownership of public houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 107.]
The hon. Member, apparently, has no evidence upon it to give, or else he was not sufficiently interested to bring it forth.
My interest in this matter is entirely independent. I have no connection with any brewing house. I am not a great drinker. I share the public regret that beer is, on the whole, of thinner substance than of yore. This matter came to my attention on the very first day that I arrived in this place last year. I then learned that the owners of the five public houses that exist in East Kilbride had been informed in May of that year that they would, as at Martinmas, be taken over, and the intimation related to purchase. November had now arrived and the owners and the licensees of these public houses found themselves in great embarrassment, because no further operation or proceeding had taken place, and they had no idea what was to befall them.
May I make it clear that of all these five public houses not one of them is a tied house. Of those five, one had been a family business for more than 100 years; another had been a family business for more than 50 years. Of the five, four of the owners were the licensees. In the remaining case the owner was in declining health and the licensee was an employee. There could not, therefore, in this case be any question of influence by brewing interests regarded, shall I say, as an industry or a pressure group.
The matter came to my attention through these owners, who were faced with the prospect of compulsory purchase at short notice upon terms that had not yet been disclosed to them; who were offered no prospect that their businesses could be re-opened elsewhere; who, indeed, had no certainty that they would even obtain housing accommodation. It is a familiar theme of mine that housing in East Kilbride lags a little short of promise. In short; I was confronted with the spectacle of five businesses being closed down.
I made my own inquiries and I could discover no single person outside the Development Corporation itself who saw any particular reason why these "pubs" should be taken over and run as State enterprises. On the contrary, when I inquired within the Development Corporation itself I was given two arguments about two of the "pubs" concerned that were strictly irrelevant, and a third that seemed to me to be of no value. The first was that a "pub," which shall be nameless, was suspected of permitting Sunday drinking. That, it was thought, was a sound, suitable and irrefutable argument for taking that "pub" over. Surely it could be replied that that was a police problem, and not in itself an argument which justified the compulsory purchase of that "pub."
In the second case—and I could not help noting it during the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—was a "pub" at a street corner. The argument there was, "We want the 'pub' out of the way anyhow." Again, not a strictly relevant consideration—

Mr. Hale: I take it that in his use of the somewhat unusual abbreviation

"pub" the hon. Member is referring to licensed premises? The term is unknown to me. He referred to the Development Corporation expressing themselves and then went on to refer to street corners, and so on. To what sort of communication from the Development Corporation is he now referring? Did he get it privately or officially, collectively or individually? How was this extraordinary opinion expressed?

Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged for that inquiry. A public-house, as the hon. Gentleman has said is, of course, a licensed premises. The communication to which I have referred was a verbal conversation with members of the Development Corporation who were also members of the Licensing Advisory Committee. They disclosed to me what had taken place, and I have no reason to suppose that there was any secrecy; the matter was perfectly open and straightforward.
To continue, the third argument which was used for taking over these licensed premises was that the new town was in great need of a new hotel. That is an argument which, in itself, is not lightly to be cast aside; but, again, it was strictly irrelevant to the case in question, in as much as none of the licensed premises concerned could possibly be turned into suitable hotels for the purpose in mind. Indeed, it was admitted that they did not lend themselves to such development, for various entirely local reasons. Therefore, the three arguments advanced do not seem to apply.
Of course, there was a much more serious allegation, which was that the level of drinking and entertainment and the social habits of the new town could not be suitably raised without the dictatorial control—and I use the term advisedly and deliberately—of the Development Corporation. It is here that I part company with the right hon. Member for East Stirling in his approach to the whole matter. The social objectives outlined yesterday are surely, without any question, acceptable to us all. We should like to see the consumption of liquor relegated to its natural place in the consumption of other things. We certainly do not want to encourage the development of mere drinking dens.
There is not, as far as I know, in East Kilbride any real danger of degraded


drinking growing up; on the contrary, I believe it is true that the statistics relating to drunkenness in East Kilbride on the whole show a satisfactory trend, but I am open to correction on that point. At all events, I did not find many members of the public in East Kilbride, or, indeed, anywhere outside the secret circle of the Development Corporation itself, putting forward any arguments in favour of submitting these perfectly respectable private enterprises to the dead hand of State control in the interests of some higher morality which could not, apparently, be achieved or reached by any other stimulus.
The question has been raised whether the development corporations as they are now can be counted upon to work satisfactorily under the new Bill. So far as East Kilbride is concerned, my attention was called right at the beginning to the fact that the Corporation were disappointed to find that the Government proposed to amend the existing law, and that they had announced their intention of doing so without consulting them. It is also true that the East Kilbride Development Corporation was not consulted by the previous Government before the latter brought forward the 1949 Act.
No doubt the Development Corporation in East Kilbride not only has a right to hold views and express them on this matter, but it may perhaps regard itself as being in some respects lowered in function under this Bill. After all, the Chairman of the Licensing Advisory Committee under the 1949 Act happens to be the Chairman of the Development Corporation. The secretary of the Committee happens to be the secretary of the Development Corporation, and another member, a county councillor, is also a member of the Development Corporation.
One could well understand that the Corporation might now feel certain fears that it was not to have adequate representation under the new system. But, as far as one is able to follow the matter, I understand that, except for details—and, upon analysis, they appear to be details of practical working—the Corporation of East Kilbride can be counted upon now to carry out its task under this Bill satisfactorily.
Their main concern, and I am sure it will be recognised as a very reasonable concern, is that the chairman of the new

panel should be totally and really independent. I dare say that they have a fear that a Tory brewer might in some way insinuate himself into that position. I can only say that, in so far as they are anxious for an entirely independent chairman, so also am I.
In the broad social problems which lie before the new towns—and they are many, and some have been tackled with imagination and some others cumbrously and, I believe, stupidly—in these broad social problems, it is most important that we should not begin by being doctrinaire or dogmatic. We want persons of good will and decent standards to work together for the common weal. I see no reason to suppose, from my own experience of East Kilbride, and public opinion there being what it is, so far as one can judge by conversation, that the method proposed under this Bill to inculcate standards by example rather than by compulsion will not, in fact, succeed.
I believe that the people of East Kilbride, whom I know perfectly well, are sober, respectable people, who will welcome decent facilities for drinking or for any other honourable amusement. There is every reason to suppose, I believe, that the example which might be set by licensed premises under this Bill would rapidly be followed by the private public houses already existing there. It is because I believe that the way of example is always more satisfactory, more humane to the individual and more consonant with human dignity, as a means of raising standards, that I am glad that this Bill continues to refer to Scotland, and I only wish to speed it on its way.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) will forgive me if I consider it a matter of discretion not to follow him in his purely Scottish argument. I feel that I must state that I consider it is a tragedy that, at the present time, we should be compelled to debate an unimportant Measure such as this, in view of the very many serious problems now facing the country.
As far as I am concerned, this Bill, as it now emerges, in spite of its amendment, is little better than when we first took it upstairs. The Home Secretary has been very consistent in his resistance to good


advice. Perhaps I am being prejudiced, but, as far as I am concerned, no Amendment could make this Bill a good Bill. The only improvement that could be made would be to discard it altogether. If I thought there was the slightest hope that my plea would be listened to I would appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to discard it. Before we had this Bill there was an opportunity for small scale experiment to be carried out.
I personally cannot claim to be an expert either on beer or on "pubs"—perhaps I ought to say "licensed premises" in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) had to say—but I am told by those who claim to be experts in these matters that there is still some room for improvement. As I say, there was a chance for experiment. Had it failed, no great harm would have been done, and had it succeeded it might have set a standard for the rest of the country.
I believe that the Home Secretary feels that the Bill as it now stands gives that opportunity, but he seems to be going rather a roundabout way to achieve what could have been so easily accomplished if matters had been left alone. When I consider our very serious economic position and then think of this Bill and of the intention to have sponsored radio and television, and when I think of the ridiculous road transport denationalisation Bill and of the intention to denationalise steel, I wonder where this Government think they are taking us.
I know that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is the Prime Minister, but I am fast coming to the conclusion that Government policy is being decided by those who find spiritual kinship with the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). I believe that what has happened in the case of this particular Bill is that that group—I hope it is not a party within a party—demanded action. They said, "Give us something which will undo something which has been done by the Labour Government." So the Cabinet went into a huddle and then they remembered that the brewers did not like the Bill dealing with licensed premises in the new towns which the Labour Government had put forward and so they produced this

miserable Bill. Of course, for them it had the advantage that it would be introduced by the Home Secretary, who is noted for being a strong stonewaller on a sticky wicket.
I have been very sorry for the Home Secretary during the whole passage of this Bill. I saw him on Second Reading and was with him all the time upstairs during the Committee stage. I saw him on the Report stage yesterday, and I see him again today. During none of these stages has he seemed to me to be a very happy man. Even in lighter moments of debate he does not seem to have enjoyed himself, although I think he is happier today because he feels he is getting near the end of his task. We can appreciate that he may feel resentful that his talents, time and energy should have been wasted on this unimportant Bill.
During the Third Reading of the Labour Government's Bill in May, 1949, an hon. Member of the party opposite stated that Bills were usually introduced for one of three reasons—to implement an Election pledge, in response to some popular demand, or in the hope of obtaining votes at a forthcoming Election. There is a fourth reason which he seemed to forget. It is possible to introduce legislation for the benefit of the people. But this Bill does not meet any of those conditions. It is so unimportant that I can only think it must have been conceived in a spirit of party spite. The true purpose, I feel, was revealed when the Government resisted the new Clause which had as its object to prevent tied houses.
There are some very strange ideas about freedom among the party opposite. They say to the beer drinkers in the new towns, "You shall drink whatever beer you choose provided you choose Blogg's beer." When we consider the problems facing us in this country it is a matter of amazement that the Government can find Parliamentary time for this miserable and unimportant Bill. I warn the Government that it will have its repercussions. I think that this Government will go down in history as the Nero of modern politics. Not only will it be said that they fiddled—and everyone agrees that they are prize fiddlers—but that they tried to quench the flames with a bottle of beer.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The Home Secretary has today again adopted, as he has done throughout the debates on this Bill, an attitude which makes it difficult for those of us most opposed to it to say all we feel about it. In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's urbanity and the great courtesy which he has shown us throughout these proceedings, one feels that one cannot reply to the soft answers which turneth away wrath except in a milder spirit. Yet, though I hold the right hon. and learned Gentleman in great esteem, I see behind him all the time those great enemies of the people, the brewers.

Mr. George Porter: There are not so many of them there.

Mr. Hudson: They are there in the spirit if not in the body, and I am seeing them in the spirit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seeing double."] It is other people who see double. One of the advantages of keeping clear of strong drink is that one sees perhaps more clearly.
The Bill has at last arrived at its Third Reading stage, but something which the Home Secretary said today made me feel that I was not hearing him aright. He paid compliments to the Opposition for all the improvements they have effected in the Bill. Had it not been for the Guillotine there might have been more improvements still. Indeed, had it not been for the particular form in which the Bill was drafted which made it essential for you, Mr. Speaker, and for other occupants of the Chair to rule out of order various Amendments which we tried to move, it might have been possible to make many more improvements. Of course, I am not casting any reflection on the Chair; I am sure that at all stages the Chair has done its duty. But, in any case, we have a certificate of good conduct showing that we on the Opposition benches have done our public duty.
If the last Amendment with which we were dealing yesterday could be accepted, as I hope it will, I would not take so dark a view of the matter as that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). He condemned the Bill with open candour. However, despite any little improvements we have effected it

is my view that this Bill is quite unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the two main reasons given on its introduction. I have said throughout these proceedings that the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the disreputable and permanent liaison between Toryism and the brewing trade.
Secondly, it was introduced—and not enough has been said about this—because of the totally unsatisfactory licensing position not only in new towns but in old towns. Proposals that have been made by Royal Commissions and which might have been taken up by political parties had the licensing system been properly looked at, have been disregarded, and we ambled on with the situation that confronted the Tory Party half a century ago on the question of licensing still very much neglected.
I remind Members opposite that in the days when the Tory Party first tackled this question they thought of reducing licences at the rate of 2,000 a year. At no time have they done anything of the sort. My own party—I am not making a party point—have not followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission that they were responsible for appointing, and the late Mr. Arthur Henderson, the great architect of this party, wrote shortly before his death—I do not use his exact words, because it was a long letter—that it was high time that legislation should be introduced to meet the unsatisfactory licensing system.
I admit that the Labour Government, to the extent that they tackled the one issue that came up—the question of the new towns—followed to a degree, at any rate, the recommendations of the Royal Commission that they had appointed. But the only thing that the present Government are doing is to follow a ramshackle procedure that was devised and carried through to meet a ramshackle situation created by Hitler in the blitzed towns, when as a result, as I said yesterday, of the Morris Committee's proposals, committees were set up consisting half and half of magistrates and other persons—in the first case, local authorities; now, in the Bill, representatives of the corporation responsible for the new town—under an impartial chairman to plan licensing.
It is this procedure to which I draw the attention of the House as the ground upon


which we are mainly opposed to the proposal. Despite the explanation given by the Home Secretary—I agree that he has been very careful and has taken a great deal of trouble to explain that he does not intend the functions of the magistrates as the judicial body to be unduly interfered with—we must remember what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has also pointed out regarding the judicial character of the magistrates who go on to a committee, who take the responsibility as to half the membership of that committee for the planning of licences on the basis of evidence that is offered, partly in public and partly in private, to the committee as a whole, who are bound, as they will be, by the reasonable attitude of a committee man working with other committee men, to have some regard to what they arrive at after private and public considerations, and who then pretend to go back on to the magistrates' bench, as they must to, under their sacred function of judges, entirely untrammelled by any other considerations than the judicial function which they must exercise.
The magistrates being bound to remember that they have committed themselves to a line of policy that has been accepted by them and by others in a committee, it is to my mind—and will be, I think, in the mind of the general public—impossible for them on many occasions to feel themselves entirely free on the magistrates' bench to judge as if these things had not taken place.
It is, as we have always said, a question not only of doing justice, but of letting it be seen that justice is done. As my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, with much more experience than I have, has said, I repeat that we continue to feel the greatest distress and disturbance about the Bill because of the upset that has been made in the magistrates' position.
I do not know how far the feeling may be growing in the Tory Party—I know that it has grown with many of my friends—that the licensing system is now out of hand because the function of the magistrates has failed entirely to face the problems that everybody, in every party, agrees confronts them. There are many people who would be glad to scrap that system and to put something in its place.

I am not so sure about the scrapping of it, because I do not know what to put in its place.
I know of the proposal about the nationalisation of drink which we tried in this small field with which the Bill is dealing. When discussing nationalisation, those who believe in it talk about nationalising the things of which they want to see more and not less. Nationalisation of coal is good because we believe, and we are proving, that we will get more coal. Nationalisation of the railways is good because we believe we will get better transport. There can be nationalisation of all sorts of things; more of what the nation needs is the possibility that is before us. The party opposite do not believe that, but we on this side believe it. Therefore, I can wholeheartedly accept nationalisation.
But who wants to see more—and I put this question to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—of this commodity, especially just now, when the figures for drunkenness are again increasing? Since 1947 they have increased by more than 100 per cent., from 25,000 to over 50,000.
The amount of money being spent on beer—I separate it from the general amounts that are being spent on other kinds of liquor—is again increasing. If anybody says that it is increasing because we are taking more in taxation, I reply that the people, in their desire to have beer, even that watered stuff which my hon. Friends dealt with so well yesterday, are willing to pay vast sums, very much more than many of them can afford; very much more than they ought to pay if they are thinking about the whole of the needs of their families; very much more than ought to be spent at present, when we talk about a welfare community, a welfare State and raising vast sums to guarantee health, sanity and goodness of life all round.
The amount spent on beer has risen to £500 million a year. The present Foreign Secretary, in the last Parliament, dealt with this point and very cautiously suggested whether we all ought not to be thinking about the extreme character of the expenditure that is now made by people on these things.
Therefore, when I face up to the evil of drink, whether in new towns or old towns, I am not convinced that I am


entirely free to support the sort of proposals that I accept wholeheartedly when they relate to other things of a beneficial character. But I am sure that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was a very much better one than this, and gave us a much better chance of introducing Amendments by which there would be consultations with bodies other than magistrates and local authorities.
I accept that the Home Secretary is to think genuinely about this matter, and I think that he may yet get in the other place something which will obtain in a generous way the representation of the Boy Scouts, youth clubs, temperance societies, churches, trades unions and the non-political women's organisations who are very concerned about this matter and who have to pay for the consequences of our failures when we do fail. Those are the sort of people who could give really good guidance and help after training and further experience in the matter. They might help even this Bill to be less dangerous than it is at present.
I wish to close on the note on which I think the House will expect me to close. We are dealing in this Bill with a commodity that brings no great good in its train. It provides great pleasure, I admit; that is the trouble, but it is the sort of thing that has worked badly for us in the past and is working very badly today for our great neighbour across the Channel. We do not want to travel that road either in the new towns or in any other towns.
I do not know whether hon. Members remember that Petain, after his breakdown and the defeat of France, said that the reason that France had been destroyed and beaten to its knees was because of drink. People may laugh and say, "That is only old Petain, the expert in excuses." But I think people will alter their tone now, for the French Minister of Health, in a Government that is largely similar in character to the Conservative Government here, has just stated at a conference in Paris that 1¼ million people in France are today under special medical treatment or in hospitals because of alcoholism, and that the amount that the State is spending on undoing the effects of alcoholism is far more than any money that they raise in taxation from the commodity that is doing the damage.
The commodity that we are dealing with in the new towns under this Bill is the commodity that has seized the people of this country, made them spend more than they ought to do and brought lower the standards of health, sanity and goodness in the life of the community. It has failed to serve any good purpose in a modern community. Those who shut their eyes to Petain's consequences may laugh, but I have seen these things too often and have struggled with men—yes, men even in this House—who have told me privately how hard it is to throw off the shackles of this thing when once it gets a hold in private or in public life.
It is with the knowledge of the great power of the liquor trade holding the Tory Party as it does, and with the knowledge that as a result of that wicked alliance we have to have this Bill, into which I have done my best to introduce what little improvement was possible, that I conclude with what the ex-Prime Minister said recently about another Bill and about which the present Prime Minister said of a Bill he did not like, "The only thing you can do with this Bill to improve it is to take it upstairs and slit its dirty throat"

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: It is always a privilege and a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). It has been quite an experience for me to follow all the proceedings on this Bill and, at different times, to listen to the hon. Gentleman. In a sense I am a little disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has kept the hon. Gentleman off his normal tones because once or twice his indignation—and it is an honest indignation—has been such that it has proved that it is not only jet aircraft that can approach the sound barrier.
Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view, and do not agree with it, he has not mentioned the true reason for this Bill. The true reason for the Bill is just this: the people do not want the State to interfere in their ordinary drinking amenities.

Mr. Cyril Bence: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Prove it.

Mr. Gough: Furthermore, if the hon. Gentleman had approached his constituents at the last General Election on this simple issue we would not have had the pleasure of listening to him this afternoon. Throughout the passage of this Bill hon. Members opposite have been trying to hide a very ugly skeleton in their cupboard and they have appointed various spearheads—one is the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—to keep away from the discussions the true reasons why they are opposing this Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has referred to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch as an expert angler. He certainly angled very successfully for some red herrings. I think that possibly the first red herring that he has put across the trail is this question of the brewers having something to say in this Bill. This attack by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the brewers in general, and sometimes on my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) in particular, proves to me one thing only, and that is that hon. Members opposite want not only to have State-owned houses in the new towns but they want that as a first step to having the State ownership of every single licensed premises up and down the country, and as a next step after that they want to nationalise the brewing of beer.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Who said that?

Mr. Gough: What I am saying is so obvious from the arguments which have been put forward in the course of this Bill. If and when that time comes—and I hope it never does—we shall be told with the usual jargon of the nationalisers that in the interests of co-ordination and integration all other breweries will be shut down and one massive great brewery will be set up. I suggest that a very good place for it would be Morecambe, where it seems that anything can be brewed up by hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Member for South Shields talked about Carlisle and said what a wonderful experiment it had been. The Carlisle experiment has been in operation for something like 30 years. I

ask myself two questions about it. First of all, why has no other city, town, or borough—including boroughs with Socialist majorities—taken up a similar experiment to Carlisle? Why have they not even asked to be allowed to take up such an experiment?
The second question is one which I asked during the Committee stage, when this point was raised. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—who is not in his place—when visiting Carlisle during the 1950 General Election campaign, did not go to one of these wonderful houses for his luncheon but to one of the two private enterprise hotels in that town?
A great deal of play has been made by the party opposite about the lack of public demand for this Measure. It would be fair to say that not only in my own new town of Crawley but, as I have heard, in many other new towns, there has been a considerable public outcry. I have never seen such a meeting as the one which took place in September, before the last General Election. It was one of the most unanimous meetings I have ever attended—unanimous in its condemnation of the Measure which was then on the Statute Book—and it sent a measure of its indignation to the right hon. Member for South Shields. There is ample proof that up and down the country a very large number of people do not want this or any other Government to interfere in what they consider to be their normal private pleasure.
A great deal has been said by hon. Members opposite on the question of tied houses, and a tremendous fuss has been made. The tied house system has been put forward as being one of a dreadful character. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) referred to it yesterday as an evil system. I turned up the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing which was appointed by the Labour Government in 1929 and which sat for quite two or three years. In that Report—at paragraph 331—they said:
… we regard the simplest tie, under which a tenant contracts with a producer of beer to obtain from the latter all his beers, as fundamental.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: In fairness to the House the hon. Member should read the following passage, in


which the Royal Commission say that the tied house system has led to many evils and recommend that legislation should be introduced to alter it.

Mr. Gough: I quite agree, but this Bill does not defend the tied house system. There is absolutely nothing in it to prohibit a free house in any of the new towns. What I do say is that although there may have been many reasons for legislation—I am sure there are; there are probably many reasons for legislation in all walks of life, and even in the profession of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch there may be several black sheep; I know there are in mine—nevertheless, the fact is that the Royal Commission stated that they regarded tied houses as fundamental.
If one looks at this matter dispassionately, as the ordinary man in the street would look at it, it will be seen that the drinking houses of this country during this century have improved out of all recognition. I believe that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will admit that. I agree that the scourge of drink in the early part of the 20th century and the latter part of the 19th century was a national disgrace. But it is essential to bear in mind that one cannot improve public houses and make them really good meeting places and clubs of the ordinary working chaps and their wives unless there is sufficient money to build them and to make them successful.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that much the greater part of the improvement in the drinking habits of the people of the last generation or two—and we all agree that there has been an improvement—is due to the thing which he was denouncing a short time ago, namely, the interference by the State, in the making of much tighter regulations with regard to closing hours and so on?

Mr. Gough: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am not out of favour with the State properly controlling the drinking of alcohol to excess, or for properly controlling the hours of licensing, and so forth; but my point is that the State should stop there. It should control, but not interfere and try to manage and run

businesses about which it knows absolutely nothing.
Representing, as I do, one of the very best of the new towns—the old part of which represents a lovely part of Sussex, and with Londoners coming to the new part from Bermondsey and Wandsworth—I can say that in that town there is no desire whatever for the original Socialist conception and that there is full and open-mouthed support for this Bill, of which I whole-heartedly approve.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I feel a very great temptation to follow the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) into some of the matters which he has brought before the House. As there is a limited period of time available to us now, however, and as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall resist that temptation with this exception, that I want to say one or two words about what I believe to be the fallacy which he seems to nurture with regard to State-trading in liquor, so far as we are concerned.
He expressed the opinion that this was what we should regard as an experiment in retailing liquor in the new towns with a view to extending it to all the licensed premises throughout the country, with the idea of ultimately setting up one huge State brewery which would do the brewing for all the public houses in England. This is just sheer nonsense. In any case, we made no provision in our own Bill of 1949 for such a contingency. We had no such intention; in fact, we rather went the other way to secure that that eventuality should be avoided.
This is the very old political dodge of sticking up one's own Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down again, and I do not think that anyone would be taken in by that sort of thing.

Mr. Gough: Surely, if the hon. Member believes in having State control in the new towns he believes that that is the best method and, therefore, would like to see it adopted throughout the country.

Mr. Wilkins: I am coming to that point in a moment or two.
I very much regret that on this occasion I do not feel it in my heart to congratulate the Home Secretary or the Committee, in which I took some part


upstairs, on having improved the Bill. Personally, I think it was impossible for us to improve a Bill which was, to say the least, rotten. After the devastating speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), to which we listened yesterday, I should have thought the Tory Party would have seen the red light and would have been only too anxious to withdraw the Bill, which I am sure will bring discredit upon them and which will certainly react upon them in the constituencies.
We listened with interest to the Home Secretary—the bridegroom of the brewing interests—dressing up the Bill with garments of snowy white, in this marriage of convenience between the brewers and the Tory Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "The bride."] I am sorry; I mean the bride. We ought not to be surprised that the Tory Party have done this because we know that they and the brewing interests have been keeping company for a very long time. But the honeyed words of the Home Secretary cannot mask the real purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Member for Horsham of its real purpose. The Bill seeks to do one major thing, and one only; it seeks to enable the brewers to exploit the good will which will be concentrated in the new towns now being built as a result of the planning of the first two Labour Governments, and being built with public money. Our Act sought to ensure State control over the retailing of intoxicating liquors in these new towns and—a point to which I attach much importance—we sought to discourage the consumption of intoxicating liquor, rather than encourage it, by such methods as advertising.
Of course, this was where we came into conflict with the brewers and those who seek to look after their interests in the House. Indeed, if another Clause had been added to the Bill yesterday—a Clause which we discussed—it is quite certain that the interests of the brewers' representatives in the House in the Bill would have disappeared.
May I refer very briefly to Clauses 2, 3 and 4, the operative Clauses, which enable the brewers to get hold of tied houses in the new towns? Here I want to correct the entirely erroneous impression of the hon. Member for Blackley

(Mr. E. Johnson), who spoke yesterday. He said:
It is utterly falacious to suggest that a State-owned "pub," a free house, gives a wider choice than a tied house. The average tied house provides probably two or three draught beers of its own, mild and bitter and very often its best mild and in many cases they supply draught Bass as well and bottled beers, such as Bass, Worthington and Guinness stout.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 66.]
I submit to the House that this was nonsense.
May I take an example of what may very well happen in the area in which I live? In the City of Bristol we have three brewers—George's, Bristol United and Simmonds'. I believe Simmonds' have other breweries throughout the country. There is talk, which may well come to fruition, of the building of a new town roughly eight to 10 miles outside the city. All those breweries supply public houses in the area around Bristol, and I submit to the hon. Gentleman that if this principle of free houses were accepted, and if it were to apply to a town within a radius of 10 miles of the city, it would be possible for the consuming public to obtain any of those local beers in any one public house without having to go from one to another. I suggest that his argument falls to the ground.

Mr. Eric Johnson: If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman, surely he is not suggesting that any free house in a relatively small town will carry a stock of about nine different kinds of draught beer? It would be quite impossible to keep it in condition.

Mr. Wilkins: I said that a new town might possibly be developed in this area, and it would be a town with a decently-sized population. There would probably be sufficient call, therefore, to justify stocking the various beers. I am not saying that they would do so; I am simply saying it would be possible for them to do so if they wished.
Finally, I was extremely pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) say this afternoon that we do not regard this Bill as the last word in this matter. We do not intend that the Conservative Party, when they are elected to office, shall simply


upset the legislation of preceding Governments—and that is all they have suggested doing so far—in almost every sphere of legislation.
As we part with the Bill, I want to make a final protest at the utter inadequacy of the time which was allotted to us for discussion of this fundamental change in the administration of licensed premises in new towns. I checked the Order Paper which we had before us and found that when we went into Committee we had at least 130 Amendments, eight new Clauses, three new Schedules and five Amendments to the Schedules to discuss. If we had discussed them we should have had eight and a half minutes for each of those items. It was ridiculous to allow such a short space of time for what I think is an extremely important Bill. Here I differ from one of my hon. Friends who said this should be regarded as a trivial Bill. In my opinion, it is an extremely important Bill making fundamental changes in previous legislation.
Finally—and it is my usual habit to add three final words—I want to refer to the provisions of Clause 5, which enable temporary licensed premises to be provided in new towns and, I presume, ultimately elsewhere. I protested against this in Committee and I urged my hon. Friends also to protest against it. I repeat my protests here, strengthened by knowledge which reached me almost immediately afterwards. The day after I protested in Committee, I read in my local evening newspaper the remarks of the chairman of the Board of Governors of United Bristol Hospital, who said:
I am in despair about the re-building or re-instatement of Bristol General Hospital. It is about 12 years since it was war-damaged. Nothing has been done. It sounds fantastic.
I protested then against materials being used for the provision of licensed premises in new towns while many of these urgent needs still had to be met. I make my protest now on the same grounds. I condemn this Bill and ask my hon. Friends to vote against it when we have our final opportunity on the Third Reading, which we hope to conclude shortly.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I do not think the House will want to part with this Bill on the ungracious note which was struck by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). The fact of the

matter is that this Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary in consideration of the interests of the Opposition, and throughout the proceedings in the Committee he showed himself the very peer of patience in the face of every possible provocation by Members of the party opposite. It was ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to withhold from his remarks any credit to the Home Secretary for the way in which the Bill now appears before the House.
When the Bill was first presented, in some secret or collective arrangement amongst Members of the party opposite it was decided that it should not become law, and the Members of that party in the Committee began at the first Sitting of the Committee to make it perfectly clear that they were going to adopt any manoeuvre, reputable or disreputable, that occurred to them to prevent the Bill from being passed. After the waste of the greater part of the time at the first and second Sittings of the Committee, it became clear that the one and only way in which the whole intention of the Bill could be discussed, however briefly, was by introducing in this House a Time-table Motion, and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) has any cause for complaint—and possibly he may have from his point of view—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): We are now dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill, and not the Time-table.

Mr. Thompson: I am endeavouring to deal with the points put to the House by preceding speakers, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure you will pull me up for transgressing the bounds of order if I do so, but I was about to inform the hon. Member for Ealing, North that, if he has any complaint that there was not time to change the Bill as he would have wished, it is a complaint which he ought to make to his colleagues who denied the Committee upstairs the proper use of the time it had.
This Bill has been made a vehicle by certain hon. Gentlemen, and most notoriously by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), for an attack on the brewers. He has not devoted himself as much as possibly he might have done to a critical


examination of the purposes of the Bill; he has devoted almost every speech he has made to an attack on the brewers as such.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the purpose of the Bill is brewers?

Mr. Thompson: The purpose of the Bill, of course, is to provide for the new towns the kind of services in the public houses that we believe the people want. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In order to make that possible, it became necessary to enable the justices and the new town corporations, acting first collectively and then separately, to provide the kind of inns in those towns that they thought the people wanted. Under the provisions of the Act of 1949 it was essential for the development corporations themselves to set up the kind of public houses they wanted.
The basis of the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch has been that, within the public houses to be provided under this Bill, there will be less freedom and less choice for the people of the new towns. Well, that simply is not so. The fact of the matter is that the public houses that will now be provided in the new towns will offer to the people of those towns the kind of alcoholic refreshment they want.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not mind my interrupting him, as this is a fundamental point. What guarantee has he in any new town that in fact the beer that will be supplied in any particular house will be that which is required by the people in the area concerned? There is no justification for his statement whatsoever.

Mr. Thompson: I think it is sufficient, for a first comment, for me to say that in that respect they will be certainly no worse off than they were under the previous legislation of 1949, because the situation that prevails now in Carlisle, where we have this State control and State management, is that there is one, and only one, type of beer available for the whole of the people in the whole area.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is making a statement that is completely untrue as regards the State management

of the public houses in Carlisle. There is available to the consuming public such beers, whether brewed by private enterprise or in the Carlisle brewery, as are required by the people in the area.

Mr. Thompson: Yes, but the whole of the choice, particularly of draught beer, is limited by the fact—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Lindgren: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this? So far as Carlisle is concerned—and I speak with some knowledge of Carlisle, having visited it—there are available to the people five different types of beer from different sources. If the hon. Gentleman will come to visit me in Welwyn Garden City, under private enterprise all he can drink is Whitbread's.

Mr. Thompson: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has gone to great lengths to try to explain the situation in Welwyn Garden City. I do not propose to weary the House with the circumstances that led him to it, but the fact of the matter is that in Carlisle, under State control, one can get ale provided by the Carlisle brewery, and no other. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes; no other. One can get different kinds of bottled beer already referred to—Bass, Worthington, Guinness's stout—but there is a limitation on the type of draught ale that can be bought in those public houses.
Under the new provisions of this Bill, in the new towns, according to the discretion of the licensing justices, there will be available a wide choice of draught beer, according to the number of licenses that there are in each new town; and that is a fundamental difference, which enables the man who likes his beer to make his own choice of the kind of beer he is going to drink.
I go a long way with the hon. Member for Ealing, North in his complaint that we spend too much of our national income on beer, and that a great many of the social evils from which we suffer in this country can be traced to excessive drinking of beer, to excessive devotion of the family income to not very profitable or fruitful purposes; but the right way to deal with that is through social and ethical influences bringing about the desire in the mind of the individual to avoid the temptation, and the desire on


the part of the community to help him to do so.
The House must not lose sight of the fact that there are those in our community who want to drink beer, who want to drink it in moderation; who want to partake of a glass of beer as a concomitant of the evening out, as part of our social life, and they ought to be free to choose the conditions, as far as they can, in which to enjoy that amenity. One of the few people overlooked in the course of our debates on this Bill is the bloke who likes a glass of beer.

Mr. Bing: A good glass of beer.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. and learned Gentleman reminds us that it should be a good glass of beer. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch had almost made out the case for the hon. Member for Ealing, North in his comments yesterday. But the strength of his case, like the strength of his beer, is open to close examination. It is not unknown to Members of this House, and certainly not unknown to the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church, that there are many different kinds of strength for light ale, and it is quite possible to produce analyses of light ale which show a variation from the particular figure, the particular line, in the Brewers' Almanac to which he was referring. There are many other kinds which he might equally have brought to the attention of the House.
I do not intend to detain the House for a long while, and in conclusion I wish to make one point, and one point only. The Home Secretary has conducted the debates throughout the very long and tortuous career of this Bill with patience and good will to hon. Members in all parts of the House. He has been tolerant and had a kindly understanding of the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, and a patient understanding of the tortuous mental processes of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. Nevertheless, the attention of, the House ought to be called to one aspect of this matter in which my right hon. and learned Friend has been subjected to what seems to me to amount to abuse of the gravest kind.
For good or ill, the Government decided that this was a Measure which ought to be brought forward. It had to

be brought forward for reasons quite well known to hon. and right hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—apart from the reasons that they think they know. It had to be brought forward in order that the development of the new towns might go ahead, and it comes a little unkindly from the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch to pass comments, as he did on 30th July, about what he calls "telepathic Amendments" introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
That remark can only mean that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not believe the statement of the Home Secretary that there had been no communication between himself and the Brewers' Society in framing Amendments. Either the hon. and learned Member means that he believes what is said and is prepared to accept it, or else he ought to go further and tell the House that he simply does not believe my right hon. and learned Friend. It is grossly unfair for a debate of this kind to be conducted for days and nights, as this one has been, in an atmosphere, of good will and patience on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend and for him then to be subjected to that kind of abuse, and I very much hope the House will take note of that.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I am sorry that I perhaps offended some hon. Members opposite by suggesting—or was it by not suggesting?—that what the Home Secretary had said was untrue. If he said so, I am certain that he had no communication with the Brewers' Society. All I did was to read the relevant passage from the minutes of that valuable body, in which they said that the Amendments they wished to make all appeared to have been put down in the Home Secretary's name. This merely showed that both bodies were thinking alike. This may be from a similarity of outlook and identity of approach, and not from any reason of telepathy. I shall not go into this further, for it is, after all, a medical rather than a social problem.
What I wish to do is to ask the House to reject this Bill, because, however courteously and however thoughtfully it has been put forward by the Home Secretary, it has quite clearly been put forward by him under a complete misapprehension. Yesterday, when dealing with what


he considered to be the major point of the Bill, he said:
The major question is whether there is to be the opportunity of freedom of choice—and there has been no evidence brought forward to suggest that there will not be competition of public houses between different brewers—or whether we are to be limited to the beer of State breweries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 96.]
The Home Secretary is therefore, I take it, under the impression—or else he was deliberately deceiving the House, and I am quite sure he would not do that—that in the new towns there was to be sold the beer of State breweries. I will give way to him in order that he may tell us where is the State brewery that was supposed to supply the new towns.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There was power to operate breweries under the 1949 Act.

Mr. Bing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows there is power to operate breweries, because the 1949 Act applied not only to the new towns but to Carlisle as well. He also knows, or should know, that undertakings were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that no such breweries would be built. No such brewery has in fact, been acquired, and the Home Secretary ought to know perfectly well that there would have been no State beer sold at all in any State-run house in the new towns.

Mr. Marlowe: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman then explain why power to create such breweries was taken in the 1949 Act in connection with the provision for the new towns, and why, when we asked the then Home Secretary to delete that Clause from the Bill, he refused to do so?

Mr. Bing: He did so quite rightly, because he did not wish to be placed in the position of being blackmailed by an association of brewers, and that was exactly what my right hon. Friend said at the time. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that if he were to build a house next year and if this Bill had gone ahead, it would have been impossible to have served State beer in the houses in any new town.
He made great play with the fact that in Committee I had said that the gravity of the club beer was declared on a label

whereas I should have said on the invoice, and he said that on those grounds nothing I said ought to have been believed. That was his argument. He now comes forward himself and says that the one issue is whether these houses are to sell State beer, knowing perfectly well that there was no possibility of their serving State beer because in any case a State brewery could not possibly have been built in the time he himself said it was necessary for these houses to open. The whole of his argument is, therefore, fallacious. If the whole of his argument is fallacious, what is the real argument?
Some of the facts have never been disclosed. Under the Licensing Act it is necessary for the owner of every public house to be registered. The Home Secretary had at his disposal the names of every brewery company which would profit by this Bill. Why has he never disclosed them to the House? He was asked in Questions to do so, but he said he could not obtain the information. He has spoken of his great licensing experience and he knows perfectly well that to get that information he had only to communicate with the licensing justices, who keep that register. Why has it never been disclosed?
Why have we never had one speech from any representative of the Parliamentary Committee in this House of the Brewers' Society? We have had a speech second-hand from the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who explained what he had been told by somebody else about lemonade. But we have sitting here in the House the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who owns a number of public houses, or whose companies do, in the new towns. Will he answer me this—and I will give him the name of the firm: Is not every single one of those houses tied to a mineral water manufacturer of Colchester called Nichols?

Mr. Peter Remnant: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bing: They are not. How many are not, and how many are?

Mr. Remnant: None of them is tied to the Colchester mineral water company. That is not its correct name, anyhow.

Mr. Bing: The correct name is Nichols Mineral Water Company, Limited, of Colchester. The shares in it, as the hon.


Gentleman well knows, are held by an investment company of which he is one of the directors. That is the sort of information we really ought to have. What is being done here is that, without any statement to this House, we are having this handed over to people we do not know. We do not know the result of this carve-up.
Yesterday I was attacked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that if a fraud took place there could be a prosecution. He is the last person to make such a suggestion. One can get £1,000 a year quite easily by perpetrating a fraud and never be prosecuted for it, and I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman how to do it. Go out in the country and say, "I will give you red meat. I will reduce the cost of living. I will do everything you want"; and you get £1,000 a year. You come here and you do nothing about it, and you can never be prosecuted for it. These are cases of types of fraud and types of misrepresentation which are outside the law and which it is our duty to bring inside the law.
Our party on this side of the House may have been lax in not dealing with the matter, but when the Home Secretary has brought before him cases of people who are going to take over these houses in the new towns, who are selling short measure, what is the excuse? The law does not say that they must put the correct measure in the bottle. We say that they are watering their beer. Their excuse is that if that is done by the brewery, it is quite all right.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) spoke of the poor unfortunate licensee who, he said, had been forced to put water in his beer. But forced by whom? By his brewers—Messrs. Stone? Do Messrs Stone ever declare what is the original gravity of their beer, and do they ever tell anyone outside their firm? How then, can we judge whether he has watered his beer? What is done is quite simply this. I repeat, and I do not retract one word of, the charges I made yesterday. What is done is that the Chancellor puts another penny on beer and there is a pennyworth more water added to the brew. I will, of course, give way if the hon. Member for Wokingham wants me to do so.

Mr. Remnant: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is not aware that the duty is charged by the Excise on what is known as the wort in the collecting vessel at the then gravity? It varies according to its class from, I think, 1,027 up to about 1,050. Until he can prove that the original gravity taken by analysis in the "pub," whether draught or bottle, is below what it was in the collecting vessel, then it is a fraud for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the beer is watered.

Mr. Bing: This is a most interesting situation, because we have discovered one brewery director who does not understand how his business is run. What the hon. Member for Wokingham said in the first place is quite true, that the duty is assessed on the unfermented liquor. This is water—and no doubt this is the reason for the opposition to the nationalisation of water—and the small number of ingredients which are added to it. Supposing one is selling special beer, say, "Double Diamond" at 1s. 9d. and 1s. 7d. a pint, and one decides that, because there is a penny more duty, one will make it that much weaker. How does anyone discover that? How does anyone tell that the drink this week is weaker than it was last week? It all goes out under the same label.
I am making this suggestion to the hon. Gentleman, and, through him, to the Brewers' Society. We can end all this quarrel tomorrow. Let him come with me to a public house and take his own beers—Messrs. Ind Coope's beers. Let him send samples to a public analyst, and let the public analyst declare publicly what was the original gravity. Are these people who are seeking houses in the new towns prepared to do that, because otherwise they may well be selling drink to people who are charged 1s. 7d. a pint for material on which they are only paying £7 15s. duty a barrel. Someone else—a more honest brewer—who is possibly excluded by some arrangement come to among his fellows—is in the position of paying £10, and he is pushed out of the ring as letting down the side.
That is the sort of thing which can only be cleared up if the brewing industry are prepared to declare what are the original gravities of the beer they sell. That is the simple answer which the House is entitled to have from the hon. Member


for Wokingham. Are they entitled to declare the original gravities, or are they not?

Mr. Remnant: The hon. and learned Gentleman's charge has grown so considerably that I want to put two points to him. First, he challenges me to go with him, have a bottle of one of my company's beers analysed, and publish the result. What does he prove by that?

Mr. Gibson: Let us all go and have one.

Mr. Remnant: The other point, introduced in some absurd way, is that if a penny a pint duty is put on, we then lower the quality of the beer. What connection has that with his charge yesterday that certain bottled beers are water? None.

Mr. Speaker: All this is very interesting and might provide material for a very excellent debate on another subject, but it is getting very wide of the Bill the Third Reading of which we are discussing.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am bringing to a close what I have to say. I have gone on rather longer than I intended. If you will permit me to answer the questions so courteously put to me, the answer to the first one is that I do not know what the analysis would reveal, but I suspect that it would reveal that this beer is a great deal weaker than similar standard brands sold for the same price. That would be the value of the analysis, because it would give the public an idea of what they were buying. It is one of the things which we should be entitled to know in the new towns.
So far as the second question is concerned, how would it be possible for these brewers to raise the gravity of their beer by 3 per cent., as they promised Sir Stafford Cripps, if it is already as weak as it is now? How could it have been sold so weak at a previous time? As you have said, Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps a little wide of the mark. I was drawn into it by a brewery director discussing the technicalities of the trade.
I think that the Home Secretary ought to take steps in another place to make clear which are the individual firms who are going to benefit by this Bill and take

steps to see that at least in the new towns the quality of the goods sold in every public house is made clear to the public. As the Bill stands, I think that it is a Measure which we should reject. It does not, so far as one can see, effect a useful change in the law, it is merely a pay off for the improper arrangement that has been come to. Nothing that has been said on the other side has changed my view on that.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: The remarks which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has addressed to the House in the last few minutes are characteristic of the Socialist approach to a matter of this kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman quite clearly failed to grasp that one cannot run a brewery business by selling inferior beer. The result would be inevitably that sooner or later the business would cease to prosper, and, as he knows so well, these breweries are very prosperous concerns. The reason is that they sell beer that satisfies the customer who goes to buy it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman takes the approach that what we need is a State brewery and State-controlled public houses, and then the unfortunate consumer has to have whatever beer is imposed upon him. He does not understand that that is the fundamental difference between us. We believe that the brewers should be free to brew beer which the public want, and the fact that they do so is evidenced by the success and prosperity of the breweries concerned.
The hon. and learned Member, of course, naturally links that argument with a Bill that is associated with nationalisation. The original 1949 Bill was in fact a nationalisation Measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot be surprised that one of the first things we did on being returned to power was to repeal that nationalisation Measure. We are, in fact, de-nationalising public houses which were nationalised by the previous Government. That is not inconsistent with our policy. We made it plain throughout that that was what we would do as soon as we got the opportunity.

Mr. Bing: I asked the hon. and learned Member to deal with his own argument in the magazine "Property."


in which he pointed out that there were areas in the country in which people were forced to take only one beer, but that it did not matter because the beer was all the same.

Mr. Marlowe: The difficulty of the hon. and learned Member is to understand; that is characteristic Socialism. He does not admit that there is such a thing as acquired taste, but other people who are not so doctrinaire as he recognise that there is such a thing. What happens is that a particular beer being readily available in a particular area, the large majority of the people in that area get an acquired taste for it and are, therefore, perfectly satisfied to get it. The proof of that has been shown by hon. Members opposite who have complained that the country is, as they say, roughly carved up into spheres of influence in which the brewers operate. If there were not local satisfaction with a particular brewery, another brewery would come in and make the best of that dissatisfaction.

Mr. Lindgren: If it is possible to acquire a taste for a particular beer in a particular area because of the exclusion of other beers, why should it not be just as easy to acquire a taste for State beer?

Mr. Marlowe: That, of course, begs the whole question. The hon. Member is failing to see that what his party wanted to do by their Bill was to set up a State monopoly, and that was the last thing in the world we would countenance.

Mr. J. Hudson: Will the hon. and learned Member apply that argument to the appeal I make? Could we not get an acquired taste for water?

Mr. Marlowe: I do not know. I hesitate to take up the hon. Member on this point, but the whole of his party have alleged throughout that this is some sinister alliance between the Tory Party and the brewers. What Socialists get an acquired taste for I am not able to say, but, in relation to the claim always made by the Socialists that they are the great defenders of the temperance movement, it struck me as rather peculiar that throughout the whole time they had the conference at Morecambe they insisted on having an extension to midnight every night. The hon. Member for

Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) can make what he wishes of that.
I want to deal with the particular merits of this Bill. I have dealt with the main one—that it is an act of de-nationalisation. One of the particular reasons we welcome the Bill is that it is the first of a series of de-nationalisation Measures on which this Government have embarked. That is its chief significance, and it is a test of good faith. We said we would denationalise where we thought that right, and by the time this Bill has become law we shall have carried out the first of our pledges in that respect. In the Bill itself we carry out a process far more democratic than anything contained in the 1949 Measure which the Socialists brought in.
That is the point I was taking up with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) just now. His party said that in these new towns there should be a State monopoly and that none of the system set up by the Clauses of this Bill was to operate. Under their system there were to be State public houses and there was power to create a State brewery. There was the risk, and indeed the possibility—the whole machinery was created—that a State brewery would supply the State public houses, and under that system of monopoly that would be the only beer available to the occupants of the new towns.
As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, we have instituted a democratic system by which the new towns have their own committees to submit their own proposals and to go through the machinery explained by my right hon. and learned Friend. When that part of the machinery is exhausted, there is the right of public inquiry and representations can be made by the people most interested—the people who consume the stuff and who sell it. I claim that that is a democratic method and a fundamental improvement on the State monopoly which was created by the 1949 Measure.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in his speech this afternoon, did, I think, answer one of his own arguments. He was dealing with the question of what was to happen if no brewer offered to taken on any of the new public houses in the new towns. But just


prior to that he had given an instance of what he described as a dispute between the London brewers and the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire brewers as to the spheres of influence in which they should operate. I gather that he accepted that the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire brewers were not allowing the London brewers to have a monopoly in their area but were insisting on competition.

Mr. Ede: I understood that their victory was even greater than that and that they indicated they would see that the London brewers were frozen out.

Mr. Marlowe: That is exactly what we have maintained, but what hitherto has been denied by hon. Members opposite, that there is sharp competition in this trade. The right hon. Gentleman has himself produced evidence of that very sharp competition.
Having regard to what you said, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in this question of gravity, which I confess I do not understand from the scientific aspect. But I suppose it is faintly and remotely in order under the Clauses which say that certain amenities shall be available. I suppose it might be regarded as an amenity that beer of a particular house should be of a particular gravity. I wish to refer to the matter and also to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church in relation to short measure, because there is no foundation in any of his arguments. In none of the cases he instanced was the seller of the article warranting that it was of a particular gravity or that there was a particular measure in the bottle.
It all comes back to this, that if brewers persistently sell poor beer and give short measure they do not satisfy the customer and they lose their trade. What is happening is quite evident; the public are buying the bottled beer to which the hon. and learned Member referred because they like it. They buy it because it is what they want. They do not ask for a particular measure, nor do I understand that it is sold in any specified quantity. It may be in any quantity in a bottle, but the customer knows that it is the bottle which he usually buys and he is satisfied with what he gets. [Interruption.] It is not to be

expected that hon. Members opposite will understand—

Mr. James Glanville: Will the hon. and learned Member excuse me?

Mr. Marlowe: I am sorry; I did not see the hon. Member.

Mr. Glanville: Is the hon. and learned Member seriously suggesting to the House that a man goes into a "pub", calls for a bottle of beer, and does not stipulate the size or quality, but takes whatever they give him and, if he is not satisfied, goes to the next "pub" and orders another one?

Mr. Marlowe: What I am trying to do is to answer the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch yesterday. I do not propose to take up further time on it, but the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well, and all hon. Members opposite know perfectly well, that this is the test of the difference between us on this issue. We believe there is no great crime in allowing private enterprise to enter into bargains with the consuming public and that the consuming public should be free to make what bargains they like with the seller. Hon. Members opposite, however, have an entirely different system, a system of nationalisation by which the national Socialist-controlled organisation forces its goods on the public.
That is a view to which we have never subscribed, and that is the great cleavage between us. That is why this Bill truly represents the Conservative approach to life, because it de-nationalises that which the Socialists sought to nationalise, restores a part of the trade of this country to private enterprise and gives the people an opportunity of making their own choice.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Before I come to wind up the debate generally on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to deal with one or two points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). From an eminent legal source we now learn that it is quite correct and within the general standard of decency as accepted by the Conservative Party for a brewer to sell to a consumer something which that consumer thinks is half a pint and which is not half a pint.

Mr. Marlowe: I never said that.

Mr. Lindgren: Those bottles are manufactured and designed to create the impression upon the person who buys them that they are half pint bottles, and it is generally known in the trade that it is not a pint or a half pint.

Mr. Marlowe: Very often what is in a half pint bottle will not go exactly into a half pint glass.

Mr. Lindgren: Not if it is a pint bottle.
I wish the hon. and learned Gentlemen were acquainted with the history of the Tory Party's association with private enterprise, because the Tory Party never really trusted private enterprise. It placed on local authorities the responsibility for carrying out the weights and measures scheme and the employment of inspectors. Why did a Conservative Government do that? Because private enterprise in trade was defrauding the customer of the amount of goods which he ought to have. It is also true that a food and drugs scheme was introduced for exactly the same reason. The brewing trade for some time has been deceiving the public both as to the quality and the quantity of the beer which it sells.

Sir Edward Keeling: Sir Edward Keeling (Twickenham) rose—

Mr. Lindgren: I do not mind giving way to someone who has paid the House the courtesy of being here during the debate, but I think it is a little hard to give way to someone who has just floated into the Chamber.

Sir E. Keeling: I merely wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a half bottle of wine is commonly called a pint all through the trade, but, in fact, it is much less than a pint?

Mr. Lindgren: I will accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am dealing with a much more proletariat activity, namely, drinking beer, of which I have a great deal more experience than I have of wine.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove has told us that people generally are satisfied with the beer that they get in their own areas, that the brewers are giving satisfaction to the people. That is completely untrue, because this is a monopoly and controls all the social

activity in some of these areas, and the people must go to the brewers' "pubs" to enjoy that activity. There is no alternative.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right to this degree, that we differ widely from this Bill on a question of principle. It is not a question of whether it is to be a State or a private "pub." The issue is that where a value is created by the community, then that value should be returned to the community. The hon. and learned Gentleman has revealed the fundamental policy of the Conservative Party, although he used a great deal of language in showing it. The Tory Party believes that if a value is created by the community through the collective effort of the community, then it is quite right for that value to be appropriated by private enterprise. That is what this Bill is doing.
Under the 1949 Act we said that in the new towns, where hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money are being used, the increased value created by bringing 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 people within an area should go back to the community and should not be handed to the brewer. Now the Home Secretary is saying that that principle is wrong, and that this enhanced value should go to the brewers and not back to the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that this was not a special concession for the licensing trade, that we were dealing with the licensing trade in exactly the same way as with any other service which had become available in a new town area. That is exactly what is not being done. Is the Home Secretary going to say that he is placing the licensing trade in exactly the same position as the butcher, the baker and other persons serving normal commodities in any area?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me a question I hope he will give way to permit me to answer it. It is subject to this point. Any new house will have to pay the monopoly value, which is a large sum which the licensing trade pays and which no other trade pays.

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about new houses, but in his own speech today he said that there were 255 existing houses


in new town areas, many of which he agrees were almost redundant. He mentioned Hemel Hempstead and said that there were 55 houses there. Many of them are not public houses in the sense that they give the publican a living. The fellow who runs the "pub" has to do some other part-time job like a plumber, a carpenter or a small-holder, but the Government are going to create a new and enhanced value on these houses which is not to be enjoyed by other traders in the area. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to treat the "pubs" in exactly the same way as the butcher, the baker and other people giving a public service I would not mind, but that is not the case.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that for the purpose of maintaining the gross value the development corporations buy up the site value of existing business premises and then leases them to people on a tenancy basis, thereby creating a tenancy under which, as trade increases, the value of the rent increases also. There is no provision in this Bill for any such relationship between trade and rent paid in the public houses.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Oh, yes.

Mr. Lindgren: "Oh, yes," says the Home Secretary, but what guarantee have we that under this Bill there will not be a linking up of the brewers to object to the value placed on a site by a Development Corporation, and then refusing to pay the price? The right hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that that is impossible, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quoted a discussion which took place between the London brewers and the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire brewers. I have to declare an interest about Hertfordshire, and I want to say a little more about it later.
I am a licensing justice in the area of a new town. It was common knowledge in the area that the brewers had got together and had decided among themselves which of them, in fact, were to apply for the licences in Stevenage, Welwyn and Hatfield. Competition among the brewers in the different areas was not going to exist. Things were to be exactly on the basis on which private enterprise often operates tenders. The firms who wish to

tender get together first and decide who is to have the contract. The other firms put in fictitious tenders while the one who wants the job puts in a figure at which he is prepared to do it. There is fictitious tendering in all sorts of trades, as well as in local government work, and it has been suggested that this kind of thing is likely to happen in connection with the new towns.
Our fundamental objection to the Bill is that the Government will be handing to the brewing interests profits that will arise from the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money in the developing of new towns, and that the Government have not taken to themselves the protection which exists in the New Towns Act of getting back from the brewers a reasonable portion of the money.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman is presenting an interesting argument, which he is relating to the increased value of property. How would he apply that to the retail trade?

Mr. Lindgren: I wonder how some people come to be termed "learned." Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that it is people who create value? If there is nobody on land, the land has only its agricultural value, possibly £100 an acre. If there are 10,000 people in the area, the land, for the purposes of building a cinema or a public house, may go up to £1,000 an acre, while the presence of 20,000 people might cause it to rise to £5,000 an acre. In the new towns, the Development Corporations who develop the areas will let shops on the basis of tender. When the population, in the first five years, is only about 5,000, a Corporation may want only £700 a year as rent for a shop. At the end of five years, when it is expected that the population will be 10,000, the rent may go up to £1,000 a year. The Development Corporation will relate the rentable value of their property to the earning capacity of the number of people in the area.

Mr. Marlowe: The value of the shop and the turnover will increase by reason of the increase of population in the new town, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. Exactly the same principle applies to public houses. Both increase their turnover and their profits.

Mr. Lindgren: The Development Corporations take back some of the value from the shops, inasmuch as they increase their rents. There is no power whatever in the Bill for the Development Corporations to increase the rents charged, or the purchase price of the sites of public houses, according to the increase in population.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, there is absolute power. The Development Corporation can settle the terms of a lease so that the rents can be increased as the population increases, in exactly the same way for a public house as for a shop.

Mr. Lindgren: That is not the general conception of the plan, as I understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That has not been accepted among Development Corporations as a possibility, nor by the brewers because they say that the monopoly value that they pay for their licences is all that they should pay.
Over and above the fundamental objection to which I have referred there are more general points. On this side of the House there are varying views as to the social value of the brewing industry and even of public houses. There are those, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who believe that all beer and all alcoholic drink are wrong, while there are others, up to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville), who believe that there is no bad beer but only that some beer is better than others. The vast majority of us would agree that within the liquor trade there are possibilities of evil, much more than in other trades.

Mr. Glanville: Might I interrupt my hon. Friend, as he has referred to me? I know he is a kindly man, so will he stress the point which I made yesterday that workingmen's clubs should be instituted in all the new towns and that there should be no public houses of any sort, privately owned or otherwise?

Mr. Lindgren: I hope that in all the new towns there will be facilities for the development of clubs on that basis. Facing the problem as it is, one has to admit that it is more likely, in the original stages, that the "pub" will come first. This trade is potentially something of a social evil, and, therefore, there ought to be a greater measure of public control.
The Bill takes away the measure of public control which was given by the 1949 Act. The public house could be, in the real sense of the word, a social centre or community centre but, as provided by the tied brewery, it is not a community centre.
I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. It is one about which I am getting worried. I speak now as a licensing justice in one of the areas of the new towns. Sitting as a licensing justice, I shall have to accept the decision of four of my colleagues who have gone as a working party with four representatives of the new town Development Corporation. My judicial capacity will be conditioned by the agreement reached in that sub-committee. If the agreement arrived at by the four justices and the four representatives of the Corporation is not honoured when the public house comes to be run, what sanction will there be?
It might be set down, for example, in such an agreement that there shall be facilities in a public house for nonalcoholic drinks to be served, and for separate entrances, but when the house is built and tenanted those facilities are not in fact provided. As I see the Bill the licensing justices then would have no means of exercising any sanction. I hope that the Minister will deal with this point.
In addition to the question of the point of view of the licensing justices, this Bill takes away what was under the old Act a protection for the consumer on licensed premises. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, cannot by smiling just ride off the assertions made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch. I said earlier in my speech that so far as the brewing trade is concerned it is true that over a period of years the public have been defrauded in regard to quality, quantity and price. That is increasing as the monopolistic tendencies of the trade increase.
If that is contested I say that no brewer yet in this House, and no one speaking in this House on behalf of the brewers, has justified what happens, namely, that the tenant of a house is charged a much higher price both for his draught and bottled beers by the very brewer who is


prepared to sell the same draught and bottled beers to either a free house or to a club. We ought to protect the tenants of the houses. Under this Bill there is no protection for the tenant of the tied house in any shape or form. He is completely at the mercy of the owner, who is the brewer. The 1949 Act provided for the setting up of more reasonable standards for those who undertake to serve the public in those areas.
Finally, may I join with my hon. and right hon. Friends in saying that it really is surprising that this Bill has been brought forward at the present time. The hon. and learned Member for Hove said it was necessary to bring this Bill forward at the present time in order that the development of the new towns could proceed—

Mr. Marlowe: I have never said anything like that.

Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will say what he intended to convey? Certainly his right hon. and learned Friend, in bringing forward this Bill, said that it was necessary at the present time in order that the development of the new towns could go on. That is untrue. If this Bill had not been brought forward their development would have gone on just the same. The only difference would have been in the ownership of the public houses in the new towns. The only difference would have been who received the profits arising from the retail trading in those towns. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends are giving those retail trading profits to the brewers. Under the 1949 Act the retail trading profits on the sale of the same beers would have gone to the community who collectively had provided the finances for the new towns.
I say in all seriousness that this country is in a difficult economic position—hon. Gentlemen opposite smile. Do they really not think that?

Mr. Remnant: After six years, yes.

Mr. Lindgren: And it is a little worse now than it was 12 months ago. But do not let us get on to that, let us accept the fact. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying now to laugh away what is a fundamental problem. So far as this country is concerned there is a serious economic difficulty. Their own Prime

Minister has said that we are standing on a trap door. One of our problems is that numbers of people in all sections of the community do not believe that the economic situation is as serious as it really is, and the problem of those of us who are politicians is to convince the public of the economic difficulty which this country is facing.
How can we convince the fellow who doubts that our economic position is as bad as it is when the Government of the day fritters away Parliamentary time at the end of its first Parliamentary Session; when all that it can bring forward as legislation is a Bill which transfers profits arising from the sale of all liquor in the new towns from the public to the brewers? This is a Bill which benefits not the community but those interested in the brewing trade. For the reason that it is fundamentally against public principle, my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House will divide against this Measure today.

7.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): We have had a valuable debate and if I say that it has been helpful in parts only, I hope that no hon. Member will think that I am being offensive. Some hon. Members opposite have said that they are completely opposed to this Bill. I think it was the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) who said that no Amendment could improve this Bill. Then he went on to say that the Opposition had put down 130 Amendments and eight new Clauses. Hon. Members who take such a view and such action cannot really expect a full answer to their remarks at the end of a long debate. On the other hand, we have had a number of helpful speeches and there are one or two points which, even at this late hour on the Third Reading, ought to be answered.
In particular, there were two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He asked what would happen if there were no bids for leases at a figure which might be asked by a development corporation. He went on to suggest that it might be possible for the brewers to get together, and he asked my right hon. and learned Friend what sanction he had kept to deal with such circumstances. Does the right


hon. Gentleman really believe that there is any serious probability of a brewers' conspiracy in this matter? If that is so, why has there not been such a conspiracy in the past? My own constituency of Hendon is a new town in the sense that it has all been developed since 1920. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in that case there has been something in the nature of a brewers' conspiracy? Has there ever been any such conspiracy? Of course not.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Gentleman excuse me for interrupting one moment? If he will refer to page 327 of the Brewers' Almanack, he will discover that the brewers recommend exactly this course. After having said that they should ascertain from the committee whether their representation would be permitted, they say:
If the brewers concerned, after consultation amongst themselves, are in a position to make agreed recommendations to the Committee"—
this is the course that should be followed. So it is not fanciful to suggest what the brewers themselves have put in their own Almanack.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not agree for a moment that what is there suggests that in the slightest degree. There has never been any suggestion that anything of the kind has occurred, and it does not seem probable that anything of the kind can happen now. As the law stands it is, of course, open to any section of the community to take a similar sort of action.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said in his speech that in a new town it would be open to the corporation to make a charge against any tradesman and that that would be the method of securing that the value created by the community should return to the community. There is, of course, no difference between a brewer and any other sort of tradesman, except in respect of the question of licensing, with which the Bill deals. There is really no serious risk.
If, however, the situation arose in which a development corporation felt that they were not being offered a reasonable amount for licensed premises which should be payable having regard to the probable profits of those premises, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the corporation from running a public house

themselves. That would be the proper sanction, and it would be one which, I have no shadow of doubt, would be put into effect forthwith.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how existing redundant licences would be dealt with. The answer is that Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1947, applies in the ordinary way. The right hon. Gentleman will not complain that that was a Tory Measure. It was passed when the Labour Government had a great majority in the House, and it provides for reduction of the amount to be paid for monopoly value of a new licence on the surrender of one or more old licences. That Section would operate in such a case, and I think would cover the point which the right hon. Gentleman queried.
The debate has made it perfectly plain that all hon. Members who are in any way connected with new towns, or have taken the trouble to ascertain the view of those in new towns, are in favour of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) said that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure the provision in new towns of what people want by way of licensed premises. That, I think, is the point of view which has been expressed by every hon. Member speaking from an area in which a new town is situated.

Mr. Lindgren: indicated dissent.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member may live in a new town, but he is not a Member for one, and it may be that some of his friends have spoken to him in a rather different sense from the views he expressed at the Despatch Box this evening. I should be surprised if it were not so. The fact is that all the weight of opinion from those in the House who are connected with new towns is in favour of the Bill.
It is not a large Measure, it is not an important Measure. I do not want to conclude by making any great peroration upon it. Mr. Philip Snowden, I remember, on one occasion said that perorations are placés where people say things which they cannot prove. I sometimes wonder at what stage in his speech the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch starts his peroration. But this is not an occasion for a peroration. It is a simple Measure. It is one which is


approved of by the vast majority of Members, whether they live in new towns or elsewhere, and I confidently commend it to the House.

Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Gentleman, first, say whether, before the matter is discussed in another place, he will cause to be published the list of brewers who will benefit by this Measure; and second, whether he proposes in the new towns to introduce any provision by which the strength of the liquor which is sold is to be declared to the public?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can answer the first question now. Brewers are simple members of the community.

Mr. Ede: Simple?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This is a valuable Measure, which will benefit the whole community, and, therefore every brewer will benefit. As regards the other question,

the hon. and learned Member must put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are in the new towns a number of existing houses which, but for this Measure, would have been liable to be taken over for the State. Will he agree to publish the names of the brewing companies who own those houses? They are all known, because they must be recorded under the Licensing Act.

It being Seventeen Minutes past Seven o'Clock (the Proceedings on the Third Reading having been entered upon at Thirteen Minutes to Four o'Clock). Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [21st July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings on the Third Reading to a conclusion.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 259.

Division No. 233.]
AYES
[7.17 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Alport, C. J. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Grimond, J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Colegate, W. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baker, P. A. D.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Banks, Col. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Barber, Anthony
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hay, John


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baxter, A. B.
Crouch, R. F.
Heath, Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holt, A. F.


Birch, Nigel
Donner, P. W.
Hope, Lord John


Black, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drayson, G. B.
Horobin, I. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bowen, E. R.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hurd, A. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Foster, John
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bullard, D. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Jennings, R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Butcher, H. W.
Godber, J. B.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gough, C. F. H.
Kaberry, D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Gower, H. R.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)




Lambert, Hon. G.
Nicholls, Harmar
Spearman, A. C. M.


Lambton, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Speir, R. M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Stevens, G. P.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T.
Odey, G. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lindsay, Martin
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Linstead, H. N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, S.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Osborne, C.
Studholme, H. G.


Low, A. R. W.
Partridge, E.
Summers, G. S.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Teeling, W.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


McAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McCallum, Major D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tilney, John


McKibbin, A. J.
Raikes, H. V.
Touche, Sir Gordon


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Remnant, Hon. P.
Turton, R. H.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Robertson, Sir David
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vosper, D. F.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Markham, Major S. F.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Russell, R. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marples, A. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wellwood, W.


Maude, Angus
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Maudling, R.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Mollor, Sir John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Molson, A. H. E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wills, G.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Smithers, Peter (Wincheater)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wood, Hon. R.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)



Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Snadden, W. MoN.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Soames, Capt. C.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Chetwynd, G. R.
Follick, M.


Adams, Richard
Clunie, J.
Foot, M. M.


Albu, A. H.
Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Collick, P. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeman, John (Watford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Awbery, S. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Baird, J.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Glanville, James


Balfour, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gooch, E. G.


Bartley, P.
Daines, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Darling, George (Hillshorough)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bence, C. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grey, C. F.


Benson, G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bing, G. H. C.
Deer, G.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Baardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowden, H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hardy, E. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hargreaves, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hastings, S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hobson, C. R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Field, W. J.
Holman, P.


Carmichael, J.
Fienburgh, W.
Houghton, Douglas


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.
Hubbard, T. F.


Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)







Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Murray, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Nally, W.
Steele, T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Janner, B.
O'Brien, T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oldfield, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stetchford)
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Kenyon, C.
Parker, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pearson, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Kinley, J.
Pearl, T. F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Timmons, J.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Poole, C. C.
Tomney, F.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Popplewell, E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Porter, G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lewis, Arthur
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Viant, S. P.


Lindgren, G. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Logan, D. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


MacColl, J. E.
Rankin, John
Weitzman, D.


McGhee, H. G.
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McInnes, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
West, D. G.


McLeavy, F.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


MaccMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Richards, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mayhew, C. P.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Williams, Ranald (Wigan)


Mellish, R. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Messer, F.
Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wcodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Yates, V. F.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Merley, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Slater, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Holmes.


Resolution agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided in Scotland, to amend the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, in certain respects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the moneys so payable under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session—

(1) Substituting for the annual contribution to be made by the Secretary of State

to a local authority under subsection (2) or subsection (7) of section eighty-four of the Act of 1950 an annual contribution for sixty years in respect of each new house provided by them and completed after the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, of the following amount, that is to say, thirty-nine pounds fifteen shillings for a house of three apartments or less, forty-two pounds five shillings for a house of four apartments, and forty-six pounds fifteen shillings for a house of five or more apartments, and for each part of a hostel deemed to be a new house, twenty pounds, or, if the Secretary of State so determines in the case of any house so completed which a local authority have provided for the agricultural population as defined in the Act of 1950, of the following amount, that is to say, fifty-one pounds fifteen shillings for a house of three apartments or less, fifty-four pounds five shillings for a house of four apartments, and fifty-eight pounds fifteen shillings for a house of five or more apartments;


(2) Amending the law relating to improvement grants under section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1950;
(3) Enabling a tenant of an agricultural holding, a landholder or a statutory small tenant to receive an improvement grant under the Act of 1950 in respect of the execution of improvement works on any dwelling on his holding in respect of which he would at his outgo be entitled to compensation as for an improvement:
B. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making to a local authority, towards the expense incurred by them in giving assistance, in accordance with a scheme approved by him, for the provision of housing accommodation in new houses for the agricultural population as defined in the Act of 1950 (such assistance being given by way of payment of a lump sum not exceeding either one-half of the cost of the house or two hundred and forty pounds for a house of three apartments or three hundred pounds for a house of more than three apartments), an annual contribution for forty years of an amount equal, where the assistance is given in respect of a house in the Highlands and Islands as defined in the Act of 1950, to seven-eighths, and in any other case to three-quarters, of the annual loan charges referable to the amount paid by way of assistance;
(2) Any increase in the sums payable under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, out of moneys so provided which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session:
C. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF EXCHEQUER AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Hector McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "half," and to insert "third."

The Chairman: It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, in line 44, to leave out "the sum of nine pounds." and to insert:

a sum equal to one-third of such contribution.
are discussed together, and, if desired, divided on separately.

Mr. McNeil: We are very anxious to accept your suggestion, Sir Charles, which I am sure will help the Committee.
The Amendments draw attention to a subject which did not receive any discussion at the earlier stage of the Bill. These matters are of great importance to local authorities and also, I have no doubt, to the Committee. The two Amendments seek to give a decided turn to two paragraphs on page 2 of the Bill which provide that, besides to the contribution set forth in the principal Act, additional contributions for certain types of dwellings are offered in part from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in part from the local authorities.
The first Amendment refers to the additional contribution provisions relating to high cost houses erected on clearance sites and the second refer to the respective provisions offered in relation to the construction of hostels. The necessity for these types of dwellings is, of course, easily understood by the Committee. In the first great surge of rehousing after the end of the First World War local authorities, with encouragement, naturally took the easiest sites and these housing developments in most of our big towns, certainly in our cities, were to be found on the perimeters of those communities.
There was at that time a prejudice, quite easily understood, though I have my own reservations about its validity, against flatted dwellings and in favour of separate and semi-separate houses. I must confess that from time to time I have wondered whether, if this tendency were not arrested, local authorities, together with the Ministry of Transport and perhaps more particularly with the Air Ministry, might gobble up land at such a rate that other sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture, might be threatened.
At all events the Committee will also understand that that tendency left in those towns and cities sad and desolate areas, sometimes deserted tenements, sometimes badly-filled sites. In more recent times one has seen up and down the country that local authorities have addressed themselves to the problem displayed in the centre of the cities and on the


perimeters. Glasgow has made a notable contribution. My own burgh has made its effort, too, and many small towns and all the large cities have, in part, addressed themselves to the problem.
That special kind of building effort had to be treated separately. These sites were very expensive to develop, and the principle had been accepted that special contributions would be made in respect of that type of construction. That principle has been accepted, and I am sure will not be challenged in any part of the Committee. My hon. Friends and I, however, feel that the amount of the contribution must be challenged, and our first Amendment suggests that instead of the contribution being left as a half it should be reckoned as a third.
The Committee may ask why we should have chosen this figure. I do not think there is any difficulty in explaining that. The Committee will have noted that in the subsidy set forth in the Bill the almost exact proportion of three to one is observed throughout the Schedule. The Committee will also have noted, though it is not quite relevant, that in paragraph 8 of the Memorandum, the respective contributions are calculated at approximately £5,900 to £19,900. So, there again, we have a three to one contribution accepted; indeed, it is a little better than that.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government has in recent months made certain speeches in which he expressed, with great acceptance to local authorities and equal acceptance on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on his side of the Committee his determination to maintain the three to one contribution in favour of local authorities. I do not pretend that I know of any comparable quotation attributable to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I imagine that this must be one of the subjects on which the Government might speak with one voice and that he will not depart from this principle. I very much hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept these two Amendments.
It is not only that it will be a considerable hardship to local authorities if in this respect they are asked to accept the lesser proportion of three to one. From a national point of view also it

will probably mean that local authorities will once more be forced out towards the easier sites which I have somewhat loosely called the perimeter sites, which will be an extravagance, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, as far as the country as a whole is concerned.
We have to assist local authorities to develop those sites which are meantime yielding nothing in terms of value to the local authorities or to the community. The change we propose is not a big one. The principle of the additional contribution is and has been accepted. The principle of a three to one contribution has been initiated by the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman seems anxious not to depart from that principle. If, therefore, the Government are in earnest and mean to follow through their calculations, they will have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. All of us have been perturbed in recent years at the extent of the encroachment on good agricultural land of new housing development. No one wants for a moment, however, to discourage housing development.
All of us are aware that in the centre of our large towns and cities there are many sites that badly need developing. Also, in considering the need for building all possible additional houses and for conserving agricultural land to the best of our ability, we would agree that our local authorities in these big cities who are seeking to provide for the needs of people who wish to live in cottage type homes with gardens on the one hand, and people who are happy to live in fiats without gardens on the other, should be given every possible encouragement to provide a fair proportion of the housing needs in the big cities on these city sites.
That kind of development is always more costly. The Government appreciate that and provide for additional subsidies to be paid in respect of that kind of development. It seems to me, however, that the Government give inadequate or insufficient financial inducement to the local authorities to go in for the kind of development which all of us would like.
If the Government are able to accept and approve of this principle of paying


three times the contribution paid by the local authorities in respect of the ordinary house, it seems to me that the Government really are obliged at the present time to give at least that kind of contribution in respect of the building of more costly houses. I should have thought there is much to be said for the Government, which must be much more concerned with the conservation of good agricultural land than a large city authority, being excused if they gave much more generous contributions towards the provision of these more costly flats in central development than in respect of houses on the perimeters of our towns.
During the Summer Recess some of us have had an opportunity of going into these matters—and, indeed, into all the matters raised in this Bill—at some length with representatives of the local authorities. Representatives of the city authorities have impressed upon me the financial difficulties facing the local authorities at the present time; difficulties in the way of big city authorities giving effect to the policy which has been declared from Government statements from time to time, namely, the building of flats on the old sites and the vacant sites in the city centres.
They have said it is impossible to go ahead with any considerable programme of providing flats or housing accommodation of this kind, because of the extent of the subsidy just now, and having in mind the considerable rate increases which most rate payers have had to bear and of the impossibility of asking much higher rents from the people obliged to occupy these houses when they are built. In all the circumstances, I think that the case is made out for a more generous contribution towards that kind of development than is provided in this Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has said, Government spokesmen have, from time to time, since the Government took the foolish and unjustifiable decision to increase interest rates some months ago—and followed that with the increased subsidies—argued this principle which has been embodied in the housing statutes for a long time, that the Government pay three times for every contribution made by the local authorities. This three to one ratio, laboured by Government spokesmen in recent months with regard

to the normal housing subsidies, seems to me to be the least that the Government should agree to undertake with regard to the additional cost of providing houses on these central sites. I wish I could argue that they should go even further than that, but I beg the Government to go that far.

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): As the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has said, this subsection of Clause 1 of the Bill lays down the statutory contributions which have to be paid by local authorities in regard to houses of various sizes. The principal Act, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, allows the Exchequer to give additional assistance up to a maximum of £20 for clearance areas, and a contribution of £7 towards the cost of installing lifts where these are required. Where these additional sums are granted by the Exchequer the local authority is called upon for an additional contribution equal to one-half of the Exchequer contribution.
The Amendment proposes to reduce that additional contribution to one-third of the Exchequer contribution; and the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that that is the proportion which the local authority is called upon to bear in relation to the basic subsidy.
I wish to make it clear to the Committee that this is not a basic or a standard subsidy. It is, in fact, an additional subsidy, and ever since 1938 successive Governments have insisted on a two-to-one ratio. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, that was actually contained in the Act of 1946, when I think the main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman might equally have been applicable.
We suggest that it is not unreasonable, where the Exchequer has already paid a standard subsidy of three times the amount asked for from the local authority, to suggest that any addition made to that subsidy should be borne by the ratepayer in a higher proportion than the one-third which now exists. I can only assume, from the fact that we have no representations whatsoever, so far as I know, from the local authorities associations in regard to this matter, that


they at least must hold the view that it is a reasonable assumption for us to make. For that reason I am unable to accept the first Amendment, and I will ask the Committee to resist it.
The second Amendment deals with that part of the Clause which relates to the local authorities contribution with reference to the provision of hostel accommodation for single people. I would point out to the Committee that the Government have increased their contribution from £11 to £20 and we are asking in this Clause that the local authority contribution should be increased from £5 to £11. The Committee will observe that we are maintaining the exact ratio which has hitherto existed—

Mr. James McInnes: It is from £5 to £9, not £11.

Commander Galbraith: I beg the Committee's pardon. We are increasing it from £5 to £9—I got the figures wrong—which is exactly maintaining the ratio laid down in the 1946 Act.
The Amendment proposes to alter that ratio, and to reduce the contribution from local authorities to one-third of the Government contribution. Here, I must say, I found that there is considerable logic in the Amendment, because this happens to be a basic or a standard subsidy; it is not an additional subsidy, it is a basic subsidy in relation to hostels for single people. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we should keep it in line with the other basic subsidies where the one-to-three ratio applies.
The Committee will know that my right hon. Friend approaches all these matters with an open mind and is always willing to be guided by reason and logic. Therefore I am glad to be able to announce that the Government will accept the second Amendment, and so place the contributions from the local authorities with regard to hostels in the same position as the other basic subsidies.

Mr. McInnes: We seem to be proceeding on the basis that the subsidies today are in the ratio of three-to-one. That probably was the ratio many years ago, but anyone with a knowledge of housing subsidies must realise that today that ratio no longer exists. Indeed, the basic subsidies today are working out in the ratio not of three proportions by the

Government to one, but of two proportions by the local authority to one by the Government.
It also seems to be an accepted premise when arguing the Amendment here that the subsidies are three-to-one. But the Under-Secretary of State is conscious today that in the City of Glasgow multi-storey flats are being built as part of the central development and in keeping with the general policy annunciated by various Governments.
These flats today are costing 50 per cent. more than the ordinary type of house. Indeed, the cost is estimated to work out at somewhere in the region of £2,600 per house, and the inevitable consequence of that is that the people in Glasgow—the homeless people who qualify for occupation of these flats—are being asked to pay a rental, which, of course, includes central heating, in the region of £2 10s. per week, which is an intolerable burden for any working-class family.
I am glad that the Government have thought fit to accept the second Amendment, but I feel that they ought also to accept the first, because this situation will have even more serious consequences in our large industrial cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, because of the intolerable burdens which these local authorities are being asked to face. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that, in the past five years, Scottish local authorities have had to find an additional £5,500,000 in order to meet the deficits in their housing revenue accounts.
Because of these circumstances, I ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the position in the light of the existing circumstances and to give some encouragement to local authorities who are proceeding with the development of flats in multi-storey buildings such as hostels and buildings of that kind.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I wish to underline this particular problem of development in built-up areas so far as our Scottish cities are concerned. If I understood the Under-Secretary aright, he has conceded the second Amendment, which applies to a special type of building, such as hostels for old people, single persons and people in categories of that kind.
I want to put to him this question. Does he not agree that development in built-up areas, in which the old buildings have been cleared away, is a special type of development only applicable to our larger cities and towns, and that it is not the normal type of building operation so far as Scotland as a whole is concerned?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has dealt with the additional cost of multi-storey flats in built-up areas. I think we are all agreed that we are reaching the position in which it is suitable, when we have old property which has been condemned and demolition and site clearance is taking place, that we should utilise that site, not for building so many houses, but for the development of multi-storey flats. If, however, the on-cost charge to the local authority is to be left as it is, we are certainly going to have this Government curbing building operations in these central areas of our cities.
I therefore appeal for reconsideration of this matter. It does not apply very much to my constituency, but I am in touch with the housing problem as it affects city centres, and I can reiterate and reinforce the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central. In Glasgow, it is a burning question, and the Corporation have been faced with great difficulties. Their costs will be augmented very considerably if no relief is given, and I therefore ask the Under-Secretary if he will reconsider the matter and have another look at the position and at the facts, which would be submitted to him by the Glasgow Corporation.

Commander Galbraith: I would like to thank the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken for their contributions, and to say that I welcome the desire which has been expressed from the other side of the Committee for the redevelopment of the more central areas in our cities.
I think that, perhaps, if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) will check up on the latest figures, he will find that the figure of £2,600 which he quoted is not in accordance with the latest technique and the latest designs for building multi-storey flats, but that it has been very much reduced, and that, today, it is not very much greater than that of building ordinary houses. Therefore, I feel that the

additional £20 which the Exchequer is at liberty to administer in these cases may well be found sufficient to meet the situation.
I hope that those great local authorities which are more concerned than others in the rebuilding of the centres of our cities will see that the very latest technique is employed in the building of these large multi-storey flats. I understand that we are shortly to have an experimental block in Clydebank. There was to be one in Glasgow, but the project is held up at the moment, though I hope it will go ahead.

Mr. Manuel: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he hopes that a cheaper technique will be adopted by the local authorities, what exactly does he mean? Is it cheaper building, or simplification of design? Is it smaller rooms?

Commander Galbraith: No; I did not refer to that. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said tomorrow, he will find that I did not refer to cheaper techniques, but to more modern techniques. In fact, we are progressing in building, as in other directions.

Mr. T. Fraser: One might well think, after having had an opportunity of reading what some of us have been saying in the last half-hour, that the contribution being made by the local authorities for the provision of new houses is only one-third of that made by the central Government in the case of ordinary houses, and that, where we have this additional cost of houses in Scotland, at the present time, the local authorities only make a contribution equal to one-half of that made by the Government. That is not so. The local authorities' statutory contribution in the one case is one-third of that made by the Exchequer, and the additional contribution in respect of expensive flats is only one-half of the statutory contribution made by the Exchequer.
These figures have ceased to have any meaning with the local authorities. Indeed, very many of them are having to find a greater sum from the local rates than the Exchequer is contributing to keep the houses within the reach of the people whom they are seeking to accommodate. The reason why we are concerned about this particular type of building is that we cannot at this stage amend the Bill as it affects ordinary houses and


the subsidies for them, but we have very much in mind the very heavy burdens which are falling on the great city authorities at this time in seeking to carry out the central development for which spokesmen of successive Governments have been asking for very many years.
The Government have conceded the second Amendment, and I am grateful to them for doing so, but let none of us think that they have gone anything like 50 per cent. of the way to meet us. The provision of additional subsidies may not necessitate the payment of more money out of Government funds. In any case, the total amount of money made available from public funds is very small compared with the cost of developing housing in the central areas of our cities.
I regret that the Under-Secretary has not been more forthcoming, but I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us on this side is under any illusion as to the size of the financial burden that is being borne by the local authorities of Scotland at the present time in the provision of multi-storey flats in our big cities.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: May I repeat the thanks of the Committee to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend for this concession in relation to the second Amendment? I do not disguise the fact that it is an important concession. The whole Committee are aware of the need for this type of housing and I need not stress the matter, but I hope I shall not be thought ungrateful if I say that we realise, however good the motives may have been—and I am sure they are of the best—that this is not a very considerable extension by the Government. However, I do not want to be ungrateful, particularly at the outset of what I hope will be an agreeable and fruitful discussion.
However, I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman to think again about our first Amendment because it really is a figure of speech to pretend that the contribution is of the ratio of three-to-one. I think, Mr. Colegate, you were happily spared our earlier proceedings on this subject, but it may be in your recollection that there was a violent difference between us as to the basis upon which this calculation was made. Some £273,000 lay between the calculations of the Government and those of the local authorities

and from our point of view those £273,000 were on the wrong side of the account. The Exchequer was going to escape and the local authorities were going to carry this burden.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), both of whom are intimately familiar with this problem, have protested on this point. Therefore, I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, not from any party point of view, but in the interests of housing in Scotland generally, to get as near to the three-to-one ratio as possible. Our Amendment offers him an opportunity of approximating to that ratio. Like my hon. Friend, I am quite certain that at the end of a year's working it would be found that the Treasury's contribution was not in the proportion of three to one.
Finally, anyone familiar with the difficulties of our authorities in the big cities of Scotland—and I know that the Under-Secretary is very familiar with this problem—knows it would be a disaster to halt the development of the multi-storey flat in these cleared central areas. It offers one of the few systematic methods of getting large scale operations going. The whole Committee are very anxious that the experiments being conducted in Clydebank should be a great success. Indeed, I am confident they will be a considerable success.
The Committee are indebted to the officials of the Department and to all the architects in Scotland who have contributed their ideas to the furtherance of these new conceptions in multi-storey building, but I cannot believe that any reductions they may effect in costs—I think there will be some, and I hope they will be substantial—will make any substantial contribution to establishing the ratio of three to one.
The Joint Under-Secretary was quite right and fair in saying that under the 1946 Act this contribution had been three to one. But the situation has changed a great deal. The local authorities are on the spot. Do no let anyone in this Committee doubt that. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, have to admit to himself, if not publicly, that unless he accepts something like our Amendment he will run a great danger of halting this essential development.
I wish to repeat my thanks for the Government's acceptance of our second Amendment, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage, to say that he will reconsider the matter of the first Amendment in which case we shall be very glad to co-operate in withdrawing the Amendment. This is not a party question; this is a subject of concern to everyone familiar with and anxious about the development of housing in our cities.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw the first Amendment?

Mr. McNeil: No. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will at least agree to consider the point involved.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I cannot give an undertaking to reconsider the Amendment. I would be wasting the time of hon. Members on the Report stage by saying so.

Question put, "That 'half' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 154.

Division No. 234.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston super-Mare)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Osborne, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hay, John
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heath, Edward
Peyton, J. W. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Raikes, H. V.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Rayner, Brig R.


Baxter, A. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Holt, A. F.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hope, Lord John
Roper, Sir Harold


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Birch, Nigel
Horobin, I. M.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Scott, R. Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Shepherd, William


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, A. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hylton Foster, H. B. H.
Speir, R. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stevens, G. P.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Channon, H.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Storey, S.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, G. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sutcliffe, H.


Deedes, W. F.
McCallum, Major D.
Teeling, W.


Digby, S. Wingfield
McKibbin, A. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John


Donner, P. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Drewe, G.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Turner, H. F. L.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vosper, D. F.


Fell, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major S. F.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maudling, R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Watkinson, H. A.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wellwood, W.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mellor, Sir John
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Godber, J. B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wills, G.


Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.



Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, J.
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Kaberry.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Hardy, E. A.
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Bacon, Mist Alice
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Poole, C. C.


Bartley, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Bence, C. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Porter, G.


Benson, G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bowden, H. W.
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Carmichael, J.
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Clunie, J.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Donnelly, D. L.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Monslow, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Murray, J. D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Nally, W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.



Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 44, leave out "the sum of nine pounds," and insert:
a sum equal to one-third of such contribution."—[Mr. McNeil.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I think it would be very bad indeed if we passed this Clause without a further word being said about the basic subsidies mentioned in it. I am very glad indeed that during the Second Reading debate I complained that the rise in costs was approaching a stage at which it would be almost impossible for the lower-paid wage earners even to consider accepting a house; and at the same time

I suggested to the Government that sufficient consideration of this matter had not been given as between the local authorities and the Government.
Since the Second Reading of the Bill we have had opportunity for a further word with the local authorities, and in almost every case we have found that the position has worsened as I had said. In spite of the no doubt honest intention of the Government to build houses, this Clause of this Bill will ultimately defeat its own purpose, because it is increasing the costs to local authorities—and the refusal of the Government to accept our Amendment adds to the difficulty. We are rapidly reaching the stage now at which the local authorities cannot go much farther, and at which those who


are waiting and have for many years waited for houses find they have to give serious consideration to whether they can accept them or not. It is a very bad beginning to find in the very first Clause that the basic subsidy defeats the purpose of the Bill. With such a beginning we cannot hope to gain from it what is expected.
I ask the Government to consider this most seriously, so that further consultation will be held with local authorities in tackling the drive to get houses at rents which people can afford to pay. It is all very well to enact legislation; the local authorities have to erect the houses and fix the rents, and the people living there, with the many calls made upon their pockets today, with a rapidly increasing cost of living, find that unless they belong to the higher wage earning class it is impossible to undertake the responsibility of a house. I hope very much that before we part with this Clause we shall hear a further word from the Government about the low subsidy rate suggested in the Clause.

Mr. David J. Pryde: On Second Reading I appealed to the Minister to withdraw the Bill because it was rotten to the core, and the core was finance. If he could not withdraw the Bill, I appealed to him to carry the local authorities with him because without them there is no hope of success. Close study of local government legislation gives me no encouragement in believing that it was ever intended that those bodies should assume the Hurculean task of housing our people—a task on which private enterprise had fallen down. It was apparent to everybody in the early 1900's that unless someone took the job in hand the country would be in a parlous state.
Although the 1919 Act gave us very sparse financial assistance, the 1924 Act was an improvement, and the 1931 Act was also a great improvement. Under the 1935 Act it was possible to build large numbers of houses because costs were low. A cheaper technique, which has already been mentioned tonight, has been the hope of the Department since at least 1945. Unfortunately, no cheaper technique has materialised. Indeed, the opposite has been the case, and the finance of this Bill clearly demonstrates that we in Scotland will be faced with

a parlous position in local government finance.
Did the Department take the local authorities with them on this? The reverse has been the case. The Convention of Border Burghs met at Peebles quite recently, and no one can accuse the burghs in the south of Scotland with having any political prejudice, because not one of them has a Labour majority; in fact, Labour members are very few and far between—

The Temporary Chairman: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but these remarks are quite outside the scope of Clause 1. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Clause under discussion.

Mr. Pryde: The Convention of Border Burghs is a very important body, and they have clearly indicated that under this Bill they cannot continue to build houses. Every burgh council in Midlothian is faced with the same problem. Although they have raised their rents—in Peebles county to the tune of £11 per house, and in Midlothian, with a Labour-dominated council, £1 per room—they have made it quite evident that if this Bill becomes law housebuilding by local authorities in Scotland must come to an end.
Recently, at the Conference of Housing and Town Planning, the Town Chamberlain of Glasgow pointed out that it would be impossible for our people to finance the building of houses. The June issue of "Local Government Finance" gives us a very fine exposition of the position entitled "The Labyrinth of Local Government Loans." If this Bill becomes law it is evident that the Government will be faced with a major problem in regard to local government finance. I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider the financing of housing in Scotland.
Although it is true to say that subsidies have been increased, examination of the first page of the Explanatory Memorandum shows that, while the local government contribution has been more than doubled in each case the Government contribution has not been increased to the same extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has already pointed out, in the last five years a number of local authorities in Scotland have an accumulated deficit of £5½ million in their housing


revenue account, and it is essential to consider very carefully any legislation affecting housebuilding in Scotland.
I appeal to the Government to take steps now to put the Bill in order so that local government bodies in Scotland will be able to carry on the work of re-housing the people—a job which no other body or power can tackle.

Mr. William Ross: On first reading of the new rates embodied in this Clause, it would seem that the Government might claim that they have been very generous to local authorities in Scotland and to those requiring houses. But we must also look at the genesis of this increased subsidy, and the genesis is in the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising the interest rate. It is out of that that we got, probably rather rashly, a promise that the increase would be met by increased subsidies.
From that point of view these increased subsidies only meet the consequence of the increased cost of housing to local authorities caused by the action of the Government. There was already an outcry from local authorities that the subsidies were not enough because of the increased cost of building, but the Government have done nothing to reduce that cost of building and therefore to reduce the cost of housing to local authorities.
I believe that the Government themselves have already recognised the possibility of the danger of which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) spoke. The Government have almost given a carte blanche for private building, because with the present subsidies and the present cost of building, even with these new subsidies rents will be such that local authorities need not bother to build because they will be far too high, and the only building going on in Scotland will be private building, and in the worst possible way.
8.30 p.m.
The Government, very unwisely in my opinion, have raised the "ceiling." There is no "ceiling" now for private building, with the result that there is an extension of private building, and local authorities sympathetic to the claims put forward of the cost of houses

for private building will again force up the price of local authority building. I think that the Government had better face the situation. We shall have a position in which the local authorities will not be able to afford to meet the housing needs of the people. I sincerely hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been studying the various reports put out during the past month by all the borough treasurers and county treasurers in presenting their estimates to their local authorities. There is hardly one who has not emphasised the serious position of housing finances.
The actual point is that, although seemingly generous, these new rates, which will increase by over 100 per cent. the statutory contributions of the local authorities and only by about 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. the contributions by the Government, will not in any way meet the situation. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at this matter again quickly, and I suggest that what we shall probably require is a commission to go into the whole question of housing finances in Scotland.

Mr. McInnes: When on the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that there was something "phoney" in connection with the costs of building, I described the subsidy calculations under the Bill as unrealistic. I think that as the days have passed since the Second Reading every word I uttered then has been amply justified. Despite the silence of hon. Members opposite, there is not one Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency who has not received a protest from a Scottish local authority with regard to the inadequacy of these subsidies.
As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has indicated, it is no mere coincidence that the increased subsidy is, within a shilling or so, the same as the increase in interest charges which local authorities have to face in consequence of the Government's policy of increasing the Bank rate. I want to deal with the fantastic figure which the Joint Under-Secretary of State referred to during the Second Reading debate with regard to the notional rent.
The subsidy calculation is based on a notional rent of £42. I indicated then that the figure was fantastic. Since the


Second Reading debate all hon. Members have been placed in possession of a document issued by the Department of Health which gives the rents of houses owned by local authorities in Scotland in 1951. What do we find in that document? We find that the rental of houses today—post-war permanent houses in 1951—is an average of £29 12s. 11d. Indeed, it is remarkable that out of 365,000 municipally owned houses in Scotland only 4,600 have a rental of over £40. Yet the Government have the audacity to suggest that the average rent throughout. Scotland is £42. That was the figure contained in their calculations in arriving at the subsidy.
There is also the unrealistic calculation with regard to building costs. I can never understand why the Department of Health are unable to get together with the local authorities and arrive at some amiable understanding on what is the real capital cost of building houses today. It is preposterous to suggest that the Department of Health rigidly adhere to their figure of £1,635 while the local authorities, with all the evidence in their favour, categorically assert that the price today is in the region of £1,900. But, ignoring all these considerations and disregarding the weight of evidence submitted by the local authorities, the Government still adhere to the £1,635 figure.
It is because of the unrealistic nature of the figure of building costs, the "phoney" figure about rentals, that I hope whoever replies for the Government will deal specifically with the question of a notional rent of £42 in the light of the information contained in the document the Government have issued.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock indicated, this has become an intolerable burden for the local authorities. When one adds to housing the problems of education, the unfairness of the equalisation grants and all the other financial arrangements with which local authorities have to contend, I think it can be asserted quite safely that there is grave danger of the financial structure of local authorities in Scotland breaking down completely. Therefore, I hope that the Government will have some satisfactory answer to give us.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am afraid, like some of my hon. Friends, that one effect of the failure to

give more generous treatment in respect of borrowing will be that while we shall not solve the housing problem we may very well shorten the housing queues because of the fear of working-class people that they will not be able to face increasing rents and rates.
We may shorten queues in the way in which we have shortened the dentists' lists, the opticians' queues and, now, the doctors' queues, or, if it be in commodities, by putting up the price and making it impossible for people to pay for those goods. When it comes to housing the queue can be reduced without reducing the human misery created by bad housing or lack of housing. But that will not have the effect that perhaps at first sight of the figures local authorities thought it might have.
I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State if it is the case, as he seemed to state, that the Association of County Councils in Scotland, for example, did not make any protest about these proposed figures of assistance? I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that they must be satisfied with the Bill because they had not protested against it. Is that correct?

Commander Galbraith: No, what I said was that they had not raised any objections to the particular point which I was discussing and I assumed from that that they found there was some reason in it.

Mr. MacMillan: Was it only on that point?

Commander Galbraith: Only on that one.

Mr. MacMillan: I think we were in some doubt and, in fairness to both of us, I am grateful for that answer to that question. I wonder to what extent the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends have taken into consideration the protests they presumably have received from local authorities in Scotland in respect of this assistance on which we are arguing.
I am very concerned with the matter in relation to northern areas, particularly in Inverness-shire, where the prospect is that not only in the near future will they find it increasingly difficult to provide houses for the working-class, but they will find increasingly that they will have


to cut down expenditure on essential services because of the evermounting cost of housing, education, and so on—and housing is the main difficulty.
Not only does the inadequacy of the special subsidy hit housing but, obliquely, it hits almost every other essential service in these counties where costs are generally higher than they are in other parts of the country. I expect to see in the very near future the impact of these increasing costs and the inadequate assistance which is being given affecting other essential services like roads, water undertakings and various other equally important things.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State can give the matter further consideration, but that is the course I suggest to him and it is the course which local authorities are urging upon him. I cannot imagine them failing in their duty in that respect, because it is obvious to us all that the inadequacy of the subsidy has been proved by the figures which have been made available to Members of Parliament.
I am assuming that Tory-controlled local authorities as well as Labour-controlled local authorities are unitedly behind us in this matter, and I hope that the Government will find it possible to try to meet the wishes of local authorities of all political opinions as well as of the Labour Opposition in this Committee.

Mr. T. Fraser: I should like to say a word about subsidies, but before doing so would the Under-Secretary answer a question for me? The Clause with which we are dealing reads, at the beginning:
For the purpose of increasing, in respect of any new house, or accommodation deemed to be a new house, …
I call attention particularly to the words "deemed to be a new house," and I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what they mean.
Some of us on this side of the Committee recall the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) in the last Parliament when he said that what we wanted to do was to provide shelters for the working-classes. I am wondering whether the accommodation that is here referred to are the shelters mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South and whether they are deemed to be new houses.

Commander Galbraith: For the convenience of the Committee I think I should endeavour to answer that question now. If the hon. Member will look at subsection 4 (d) he will see that the words, "deemed to be a new house" refer to one of the houses for the old people, the hostel. There is nothing about mere camp equipment or anything like that in the Clause.

Mr. Fraser: I am indebted to the Under-Secretary for I was quite sure that the Government did not have in mind the camp equipment to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South referred, otherwise they would not be paying the same subsidy as they do for the normal housing accommodation.
The Government must know by now that local authorities throughout Scotland are most unhappy about the subsidies here provided, and are concerned about the reasons for having increased charges at the present time. Throughout the country in recent weeks we have seen estimates presented to local authorities by their finance officers or treasurers, and almost without exception those officials or the leaders of finance committees have called attention to the additional almost unbearable burdens which local authorities in Scotland have to shoulder as a result of the increase in the interest rates from 3 per cent. to 4¼ per cent. It is because that is so and because that is the reason for this Bill, that this Measure is just about the biggest fraud that has been perpetrated on the people of Scotland for a long time.
8.45 p.m.
Supporters of the Government have been claiming in Scotland that the housing subsidies are the most generous that have ever been. Generous to whom? Generous to the moneylenders. The people who occupy the houses have not been better treated than they were before March of this year. They are worse off. The local authorities are not better off than they were. They are worse off, and they said so in Committee rooms upstairs when they came to see us and other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies shortly before the summer Recess.
There was a great demonstration at Scarborough last week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Great?"] Well, a lot of


people were there, all representatives of the Tory Party. They were not delegates, so they could say whatever they liked. They discussed a resolution in favour of reducing housing subsidies, and they carried it. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be obliged to us now for giving him the opportunity of speaking on the Clause and saying that, at the earliest possible moment, he will give effect to the resolution carried at Scarborough in favour of reduced subsidies. Unfortunately, the Tory Party never seem to worry at their complete inability to match their actions with their words.
They talk glibly about the need to reduce housing subsidies while they increase the cost of building houses by £20 or more per house every year for 60 years. They have put up the cost of the average municipal house in Scotland by £1,200 by the decision they took in March of this year. The additional cost of the average local authority house in Scotland will be £20 per year for 60 years, which adds up to £1,200.
Therefore, the Government have had to introduce new subsidies. They are giving the subsidies set out in the Clause. For the average four-apartment house the subsidy is now to be £42 5s. and the local rate contribution will be at least £14 5s. That will be a minimum contribution from public funds of £56 10s. per year. It is only the minimum, and not the actual contribution. It is very far short of the actual contribution.
It would be bad enough if the provision of houses for the ordinary people in Scotland were to cost the taxpayer and the ratepayer all that extra money for the reason that building trade workers had been demanding bigger wages, or that the cost of timber, bricks and cement had gone up. Not at all. Those costs have all gone up, certainly, but there is not a penny additional subsidy in respect of those additional costs. The additional subsidies provided for in the Clause are intended and calculated to make it possible for this beneficent Tory Government to make a present of hundreds of millions of pounds to their friends the moneylenders.
Nobody will stand up at the Government Despatch Box this evening or on any other day and tell us that the purpose of the new subsidies is other than

to meet the additional cost of providing houses consequent upon the increase in interest rates. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The moneylenders can get a bigger return on their investments, and if money goes into housing through increased contributions from taxpayers and ratepayers then additional earnings on investments in water supplies, schools and other services provided by local authorities will have to be found by local authorities directly.
That is why this Clause is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the people of Scotland. The Government ought to speak more responsibly in the country than they do about housing subsidies. Everywhere in Scotland Tories say that housing subsidies should be reduced. We would be perfectly happy if the Government would take back this Clause, give us reduced subsidies and bring the interest rates on moneys borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board down from 4¼ per cent to 3 per cent. We would be quite content to see them take £10 off the subsidy for a four-apartment house. We would reduce the subsidies if the Government would take the other decision of reducing these quite unnecessary burdens that they have imposed upon the local authorities of Scotland.
Now is perhaps the last opportunity the right hon. Gentleman will have of making a speech seeking to justify these subsidies, seeking to reconcile his action in bringing forward this Clause with the resolution passed at Scarborough and the speeches made by many of his colleagues who sit as hon. Members of this House. We shall never be happy with these subsidies. We have discussed them with the local authorities in many parts of Scotland. I shall not go into the details that some of my hon. colleagues have done, but I have been furnished with plenty of detail by local authority financial officers in Scotland in recent weeks and months.
There is no doubt that the local authorities of Scotland are up against it, and there is no doubt that they are wondering how, if building costs remain at the present level, they will be able to continue to provide houses with the present subsidy. The Government can make it much easier for the local authorities. The Government can think again about this Bill. They can, of course, provide higher subsidies. Personally, I do not think that is


the way out of the difficulty. I think we could do with slightly reduced subsidies if we would only take away the need for the additional subsidy at the present time.
Let them reduce interest rates to reasonable proportions. Only last week we read in the Scottish Press as no doubt one could have read it in the English and Welsh Press, that the Government were issuing stock at 1¾ per cent. and 1⅞ per cent. short-term loans, to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, out of which the Public Works Loan Board make moneys available to local authorities at 4¼ per cent., and additional charges on top of all that.
The Government can help the local authorities if they wish, but I think they have no wish to do so. They want to make it easy for the local authorities in Scotland who are friendly towards them to bump up the rent and shorten the queue and, at the same time, to justify an ever increasing number of houses being built for sale.
That is because the burden of providing houses for letting, each using £50 or £60 of public money every year for years will be so heavy that the local authorities friendly to the Government party will increasingly and progressively minimise the buildings programme of houses to let. They will encourage to the utmost the building of houses for sale, which will not ease the problems and the worst difficulties of the majority of the working people of Scotland.

Mr. James Carmichael: I intervene in order to lodge a very necessary protest. I took no part in the Second Reading debate, and already sufficient figures and information have been given regarding the problem there will be in the financing of housing in Scotland if the Bill goes through. I do not want to go into details, but I think that the problem will be even much bigger if the Government allow this Measure to go through. There is a very serious social problem and a very serious democratic problem.
The problem of housing in Scotland is extremely bad. I do not like constantly to refer to the city to which I belong, but it is a dreadful city so far as housing is concerned, and the Bill makes no attempt to ease the burden. I have heard regularly from both sides of the House that

housing should be taken out of the sphere of party political conflict. I have felt sometimes that there was a genuine desire on the part of many Members to do that, but I have very grave doubts now.
We have already been advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as a result of raising the Bank rate, the moneylenders and the bankers have pocketed an extra £100 million. Even if one examines that quite impartially, it is obvious that it is simply in keeping with the line taken by Tory Governments. During the last two days, all the eloquence from the other side of the Chamber has been in support of the brewers. I do not mind if it be the desire of the party opposite to help their friends, but I feel that when it comes to the problem of housing they might at least give some crumb of comfort to the thousands who are now homeless.
What surprises me in this debate is the stony silence of some of the experts on housing on the other side of the Committee. I am amazed, for instance, that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), with his knowledge of this great problem, has not intervened. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not support the Bill."] I am satisfied that he has very grave doubts about it and, therefore, that it is wise of him not to intervene at this stage.
I am bound to call attention to another Member, because he has been extremely impetuous since he arrived here after the last Election. I refer to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who has dabbled in almost every subject that has been before the House. Why he does not engage in some kind of contribution to this debate simply baffles me. I hope that he will have some contribution to make on the Clause.
Let me deal with the social problem. No Member knows better than the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), about the serious situation in the City of Glasgow. If the Bill goes through and there is an attempt to charge an economic rent for a four-apartment house, it will be in the region of about £100. The mathematical experts, I think, could make the figure even higher.
If, apart altogether from the local subsidy, there have to be still further borrowings from the local rates to reduce


the figure to below £100, two serious financial problems are created. First, it is quite impossible for the ordinary people of Glasgow to pay a rent in the region of £2 to £2 10s. a week. A similar problem will be found in many of the Scottish counties.
This method would achieve no saving, because a further burden is being placed on the local rates by reducing the rent figure from £100 to something less. Already, as every other speaker tonight has pointed out, there is not a local authority that is not protesting against the heavy burden it is at present facing. On this issue it is not a question of, say, a Labour council being anxious to engage in propaganda against a Tory Government. Every local authority is faced with a very serious financial burden.
9.0 p.m.
Therefore, apart from the social aspect of the serious problem of the condition of the people, the Government are aiming at destroying local government. It has often been argued in this Chamber that one of the strongest foundations of our democratic government is the work of our local authorities. We are bound to protest tonight for the Government will not touch the housing problem with this financial method but will further burden the local authorities.
I am convinced that the Joint Under-Secretary of State would have protested more eloquently and vehemently than I have if he had been on this side of the Committee. I beg him to heed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). This is not merely a matter of rushing a Bill through the House of Commons. The Government are making serious inroads upon the power of local government, and if this continues some emergency will arise which will require the appointment of a committee to tackle the problem much more seriously than it is being tackled now. It is not merely that the Government are handling the housing problem badly; the whole question of local government is involved.
I cannot understand why men who, while their political opinions are different from mine, have knowledge of and competence in both national and local government have tried to push through a Measure of this kind. If it is impossible to make any Amendment tonight, I beg

of them, before the Bill goes to another place, to put their heads together—I do not want them to crack their heads, although when I look at the Bill I think that has already happened to them—and take stock of the very serious decision they are making, which will create a setback in social progress in Scotland and at the same time undermine democratic government.

Mr. J. Grimond: There is no doubt that the finance of local authority housing is a very serious matter all over Scotland. It is particularly serious in the far north where building costs are very high. The figure of £1,900 has been mentioned as the price of a house in some parts of Scotland, but in the far north the figure is well over £2,000 in some cases.
We are assisted to some extent by the special grant for remote areas. I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State a question which he may not be able to answer now, but I shall be grateful if he will look into it. I take it that the special grant for remote areas will not be affected by the increase in the contributions with which the Clause deals, but it has been suggested—wrongly, I hope—that the remote areas grant may not be available for the cost of the preparation of sites and services.
I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to deny that, for if that is the case, whether the housing is financed through the rates, the Exchequer contritions or through the rents, the very serious problem remains a most pressing one for the local authorities, and in the far north it will undoubtedly much worsen if the extra remote area grant is not available for services and site preparation.

Commander Galbraith: We are now dealing with the Clause as it stands at present, and it lays down the contributions which are to be made by the Exchequer and by the local authorities in respect of all the houses that have been completed since 28th February last. Of course, we all know that the cost of house-building has unfortunately been rising continuously since the end of the war. For example, I think that in 1946 the cost of the ordinary four-apartment house was under £1,200, and when we came to review the position towards the end of last year it had risen to about £1,750.
I cannot help observing that although that upward trend must have been perfectly apparent to the previous Government, they maintained the subsidy for a four-apartment house at £23, which was the figure fixed in 1946. I may be excused perhaps for feeling that the criticism of the proposals in the Bill, which have been so vigorously and strongly attacked by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, represents an attitude which is a little out of keeping with their own past record.
Be that as it may, I wish to dispute several things that have been said by hon. Members in the debate. The Government have in fact recognised in a practical manner in the new subsidy the increase in building costs, because it so happens that the subsidy more than meets the increase in the rate of interest; it does leave something over to go towards the increase in the cost of building.
I wonder whether the Committee would allow me, purely for purposes of argument, to assume that the figure of £1,635 which we used in relation to the subsidy calculations is actually an accurate figure? Hon. Members will remember how that figure was arrived at. We first took the average of the tenders for the last six months of last year and the first month of this year. That gave a figure of £1,765. We then deducted from that the saving which would accrue, in our opinion, from adopting what we call space-saving technique. In addition, we made a further deduction in relation to the economies to be effected by replacing concrete with wooden floors, which affects about half our houses. The figure of saving which we arrived at amounted to £130. So we reached the figure of £1,635. Naturally, we wanted to induce local authorities to adopt space-saving designs and technique.
As the increase in the subsidy is £19 5s. 0d., and increased interest charges on a £1,635 house would amount to £16 5s. 0d., an increase of £3 over 60 years was provided against the increase in the cost of building.
I am now going to assume that the correct figure was that which the local authority associations maintained—£1,900. If that were true, I quite readily admit that the new subsidy would fall short by as much as 1s. 9d. of meeting the increase in the cost of money. I put

it to the Committee, however, that where reasonable people are concerned, and they find that two bodies of experts differ in the advice they tender, it is quite normal to take the mean of the two. If we do that in this case, it will be found that the subsidy does meet the increase in the interest rate and also provides something towards the increase in the cost of building.
One thing which has been absolutely obvious from the speeches of practically all Members who have spoken in this debate is the grave concern which is felt at the increased burden which the housing programme is throwing on both national and local finance. Yet I do not think there is a single hon. Member in the Committee who would think of suggesting that it would be right for us to abandon our efforts to provide adequate housing; because we are all agreed on one thing, which is that the existing situation is the cause of so much ill-health, so much distress and so much unhappiness.
But the cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer has really reached an alarming level. I remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) said in the course of the Second Reading debate—and this is something I think we ought constantly to keep in mind—that there are only three sets of people who can foot the bill. One is the ratepayers, another the taxpayers, and the third is the tenants. We are concerned with the amounts which have to be provided by the two categories I first mentioned.
I do not think it would be seriously suggested that the taxpayers' contribution of £42 5s. for a four-apartment house, 16s. 3d. a week, is ungenerous. In addition to that the ratepayers are asked to contribute some 5s. 6d., and also, as has been pointed out in many speeches which we have heard, to make good any deficiency which may result from or arise out of the financial arrangements of local authorities.
The question of rent has been raised, and I would only refer the Committee to the words I used in the Second Reading debate. I pointed out that there were many local authorities who were today charging rents of £40 and more. I would also ask the Committee to be good enough to consider the situation as it exists with


us and in England. Let me remind the Committee that we cannot take a notional rent of £33 when in England the local authorities accept a notional rent of £46 16s. I think that is something to be remembered.
Another point is the vast difference between the rents charged by adjacent authorities. I came across one case recently where exactly similar trades were being carried on in the area of two adjacent authorities and there was a difference of £10 in the annual rent of their houses. One must be too high or the other too low. I think it is for the local authorities to decide these matters themselves. I have discussed the question of rate subsidy with the local authorities and I have found, as every hon. Member of the Committee has found, that they are very seriously worried at the increasing amount being placed on the rates with regard to housing after the rent has been charged. I ask the Committee to recognise that we are all faced with a very difficult problem.
I do not think it is possible for any of us to envisage a larger contribution from the taxpayer. We have reached agreement that the local authorities are hard pressed. Those hon. Members interested in housing know that the architects have done their very best in space-saving techniques while maintaining the standard of living space. It seems to me—and I should like the Committee to consider this—that only two possibilities remain open to us to keep down the cost.
The first is that all local authorities should accept these space-saving designs because, as has already been demonstrated, there is a great deal that can be saved by their adoption. It was only last week that I had the privilege of opening the first block of a housing development in Paisley where, as the result of the adoption—or rather the adaptation—of these space-saving designs; as a result of the most careful organisation, and as a result of having obtained the good will and co-operation of both the employers and the men working on the site and of all others concerned with the project, there was a saving of £150 on each house.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: How much did they cost?

Commander Galbraith: As to the actual cost of the houses, I would not like

to say at the moment, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figure. I do not want to mislead the Committee, but I would say, subject to correction, that it was in the region of £1,450, to which, of course, has to be added the costs of site preparation and the provision of services, which might add another £200 to it. If my original figure was correct, that would bring it up to £1,650, and that is a saving of about £150 per house. I want the Committee to note that that is a saving of £20 more than we allowed for when we came to calculate the housing subsidy.

Mr. Manuel: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee.

Commander Galbraith: I have said so already.

Mr. Manuel: Is he not dealing with the cost of the three-apartment house, and would he not agree that the same argument is not applicable to the notional rent of the four-apartment house?

Commander Galbraith: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was speaking from memory. I said at the start that I did not want to mislead the Committee, and I hope that I may have the correct figure before I sit down. I am given to understand that the figure for the four-apartment house was, as I said, in the neighbourhood of £1,600.
I am very glad to be able to tell the Committee that more and more local authorities are beginning to adopt this space-saving technique along the lines suggested to them by the Scottish Office, and I would express the hope that soon every local authority will have done so and will therefore benefit from the reductions in cost which can be obtained from it.
The only further reduction, it seems to me, can come from the building industry itself. I have had meetings with both sides of the building industry, and I know that they share my concern and the concern of all hon. Members. In fact, they demonstrated that last week in an editorial in a building trade journal, which said:
We as builders must get these costs down.
I would appeal to everyone connected with the building industry to set about this task with the utmost vigour and without any delay.
From what I have said, it must be evident to the Committee that I do not believe that the answer to this rising cost of building is to be found in increasing the subsidies. In the present economic circumstances of the country, the Government have gone to the limit of prudence. Architects have done their best, and I suggest that it is now for the building industry itself to show that it is not going to be beaten, but that by the exercise of ingenuity and by getting that co-operation which we all desire, as well as by an increase in both technique and skill, it may yet achieve significant results.
I end by expressing the hope that the Committee, having discussed this Clause for a considerable period, may now see its way to agree to it.

Mr. McInnes: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I asked him to deal with the question of the notional rent in relation to the publication which has been issued by the Department? The average rent is in the region of £29.

Commander Galbraith: All that the Scottish Office have done is to provide the figures as to the rent running at the present time, and they have given the rents charged so that hon. Members may study them and make up their minds whether they are adequate or not, but that has nothing to do with the question of a notional rent.
I was asked about the remote area subsidy by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am glad to be able to assure him that there is no change in the method of working that subsidy.

Mr. Manuel: I want to deal with the question of the space-saving house mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said, if I understood him aright, that space-saving methods had reduced costs by £150. On his own figures that brings the cost to over £1,600 to which we must add £200 for site preparation and the provision of services. Therefore, the total is £1,800 or thereabouts. On the other hand, according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures, the subsidy provision is to be £1,635, which fact, I think, supports the argument put forward by this side of the Committee that the subsidy given under the Bill is totally inadequate to meet the

cost of the space-saving house which, I understand, is the cheapest house to be provided in Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing matters. The position is that if he takes that figure, he has to take the figure of £1,765.

Mr. Manuel: Why?

Commander Galbraith: Because the hon. Gentleman added on the £150 first.

Mr. Manuel: No.

Commander Galbraith: If I followed the hon. Gentleman aright, he did. He added on the £150 and then proceeded to add on the cost of the site. That is what I understood him to say.

Mr. McNeil: I am very anxious to understand this, but I am as puzzled as is my hon. Friend. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the net cost of the four-apartment house with the space-saving improvements ran out at £1,635, and, as my hon. Friend says, we have to add a figure for services which results in a gross figure of not less than £1,800. Perhaps we have got it wrong, and I am sure the Committee will be indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will clear up the point.

Commander Galbraith: I was speaking of course, from memory, and I really cannot refresh my memory at this point. I have given the Committee the best explanation of it I can.

Mr. Manuel: I am not convinced by the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman because, quite definitely, he gave the figure of £1,600. To that figure we have to add, whether we like it or not, a round £200 for site preparation and the provision of services. That is quite simple, and anybody who has had any interest in housing knows that is the position. Therefore, the cost figure is £1,800. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated that the space-saving house is the lowest cost house we should adopt for Scotland.
I am amazed that we are having no speeches from the other side of the Committee. Do not hon. Members opposite represent the local authorities in Scotland? They are always prating about the local authorities not being treated properly when we were the Government,


but I would point out that there is complete unanimity among the Scottish authorities about the inadequacy of the proposed subsidies outlined in Clause 1 and, whether they like it or not, the Tory-controlled local authorities are just as vehement as those controlled by Labour Party members about the proposed subsidies. Therefore, it is passing strange that we should be experiencing this silence on the part of some hon. Members opposite who are usually very vocal on the subject.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) when he said that the present Under-Secretary would have been much more vocal in dealing with the matter were he sitting on the opposition benches. On every occasion he could he took a very strong line in criticising the Labour Government. We are hearing a lot about groups these days. I think we have a quiet group on the other side of the Committee tonight which does not intend to be disturbed or put out no matter what we say.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was talking last week of Quislings in his own party. If there are Quislings in his own party I think it should be drawn to the attention of the Scottish local authorities. I think they are more than Quislings: they are people who are not prepared to speak up for the local authorities who, after all, have to pay the bill no matter what the reckoning is.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has based his calculations on the subsidy provisions, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has said, the notional rent of a four-apartment house of £42. I want to ask him how he arrived at that figure. It is certainly not culled from statistics in the Scottish Office. How does he pit his knowledge against the knowledge of the local authorities and say that the building of a four-apartment house costs only £1,635, when the local authorities say quite definitely that the average figure is £1,900? After all, it is they who are paying the account. They ought to know what they are paying for it. I think we have to ask the Secretary of State, if we can bring him to the Box

tonight, to tell us how they arrived at that figure.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to read the Report of the Second Reading debate he will find a complete explanation.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that I spoke in that debate and that I asked for a neutral body to be set up in order that we could have the figure examined and a proper interpretation put on it. But if the local authorities say that the building costs for a four-apartment house are £1,900, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman says the cost is £1,635, could he tell us the items he has left out of the account? Did he include architect's fees? I do not think he did.
I should like him to try to answer these points. Did he include any provision at all for under-building? It appears to me that the Government are taking this line with the local authorities who are hardest hit—and by that I mean those who are paying more for the building of their houses because of the amount of under-building because of the nature of the sites on which they have to build—they are not to be considered at all.
I am astonished at the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). His constituency runs adjacent to mine. I have met some local authority people who are very perturbed about the high building costs in his own constituency who feel now that the cost is such that it is going to counter building activities on the hillsides. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are not getting a penny piece for that under-building, and that the Government will make no provision for that expense in his constituency? He remains mute; he refuses to represent his local authorities who are crying out about this question. I cannot understand it.
The same thing is apparent in Lanark, and in Argyll to a greater extent. Who is this Whip, I wonder, who can muzzle hon. Members opposite to the extent that they are muzzled tonight? Where is this fellow? There seems to be another Hitler arising in the Tory ranks, so we must look out.

9.30 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps 1 can save the hon. Gentleman from becoming more excited. He has asked two very relevant questions and he is entitled to an answer. So far as architects' fees are concerned, I do not think they have ever been included. So far as under-building is concerned, it is included. Architects' fees are not included, under-building is.

Mr. Pryde: How much under-building is included?

Mr. Manuel: I rather question the statement that under-building is included. Do I take it that the under-building in West Renfrewshire is taken full cognizance of in the figures submitted by the local authority? My information is that it is not included.
I do not in any way want to detract from the possibility of the space-saving technique in the Paisley house, although my natural inclination is not to have too much space saving. I have not seen the house, and until I have examined it I do not wish to say anything that may be harmful. I thought that the space-saving technique which the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to throw around himself tonight as a protective covering looked more like a face-saving technique for the Government. I am afraid that Scottish local authorities are not prepared to take that as the answer.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider what he is doing in Clause 1 for local authorities who want to provide more houses. Is he aware that by the inadequacy of the proposed subsidy he is condemning thousands of Scottish people in the years ahead to the certainty of not being rehoused? Undoubtedly, whether he likes it or not, local authorities will not be able to levy a much higher rate from rents in their areas, which means that they will have to cut down the provision of houses. Alternatively, is every hon. Member opposite prepared to agree with the Under-Secretary that we should take £42 as a notional rent for a four-apartment house for every working-class family? Are they going on record as agreeing with a rent of £42 per annum for every four-apartment house? If they do not speak tonight in support of what we are trying to do they will be acquiescing in that.
To meet the higher building costs, which the Government are not meeting

with the proposed subsidies, local authorities are having to increase rents all round. Even the rents of the older municipal houses, some of them with no modern amenities in the kitchens and bathrooms, are being increased. We are approaching a situation in which working-class families in Scotland who accept municipal houses are condemning themselves to paying rents which will mean keeping food out of their children's stomachs and clothes off their backs. There is no doubt about it.
Do not forget that we have many thousands of railwaymen earning under £6 a week. Anyone who knows anything about a household budget is bound to recognise that the position of such a family today is extremely difficult. This is also happening at a time when in the textile industry, the paper industry and the carpet industry there is short-time working. A full wage packet was not coming into the home each week. In spite of that we were having short-time working, under-employment and, in many areas, an increase of rents paid by the municipal tenants.
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland not to let his name go down in history as the Secretary of State who allowed himself to deter many thousands of Scottish people from being able to pay the rent which he is saying ought to be paid, owing to the inadequacy of the subsidies proposed in this Clause.

Mr. McInnes: I did not intend to make a further contribution to this debate, but it has become abundantly clear that the longer this debate proceeds the more we are being misled and confused by what I can only describe as an aggregation of inaccuracies.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State quite categorically asserted a moment or two ago that under-building had been provided for in the calculations of the capital cost of a house. I have in my possession a document which sets out the various items compiled by the Department of Health and by the local authority associations. In the Department of Health calculations, not a single penny is shown for under-building, while the local authorities include a figure of £150. I think that it is grossly unfair, to say the least, that we should have statements of that kind from the Government Front Bench.

Commander Galbraith: The statement which I made is perfectly correct. It may not be shown in the figures which the hon. Gentleman has in his possession. It was certainly taken into account on average.

Mr. McInnes: The position becomes more confusing than ever because this is the official document circulated by the local authority associations, and includes the Department's own figures. I do not want to weary the Committee, but I could easily make up the £1,635 upon which this subsidy is based. The first item of £1,664 is the average tender price approved. The second item is £150 for increased costs as a result of higher wages and the increased cost of building materials which had taken place up to December, 1951. It is estimated that the average cost of the non-traditional house is £1,499 and of the traditional house, £1,664. These figures, divided by two, give an average of £1,582 when we add for land £12, site surveying £131, and an addition for increased costs in the first period of 1952–53, £40—less £130 for "low cost design" houses making a figure of £1,635.
Cognisance is taken in that calculation of the low-cost house at Paisley. It is actually estimated in the capital calculations as a saving of £130 per house in respect of the low-cost design. These figures bring out precisely the figure upon which the subsidy calculations were based, £1,635.
I reiterate quite seriously that there is no provision for under-building. The Government go further and confess that no provision was made for architects' and surveyors' fees. They said it had not been done. I accept that statement, but I am very doubtful whether in all previous subsidy calculations provision was not made for what is, after all, a legitimate charge.
I come to the second point, and I want to get some definite information on this issue. The subsidy calculations are based on an average rental of £42 per annum. There is no dubiety about that. On Second Reading I indicated that the local authorities had stated that their calculation was £33. I said on that occasion that even that figure was far too high, and I am reinforced in my arguments by the production of this document by the Department.
I repeat what I said earlier in the debate, that the average rental throughout Scotland for the post-war permanent house is £29 12s. 11d. I again indicate that out of 365,000 houses municipally owned in Scotland only 4,600 have a rental of more than £40. How did the Department arrive at their figure of £42 as the notional rent in determining the subsidy calculations?
I think I have made the position as clear as it is possible to make it. I am asking how the Department arrived at that figure? Surely the Department, even at this late hour, are in a position to give some indication as to how that figure was arrived at. It is a figure on which the whole of the subsidies are based. It is a fantastic and unrealistic figure and, if they confess to that tonight, they confess that the whole basis of the subsidies they have allocated to local authorities is entirely "phoney," as I have already asserted.

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to delay the Committee unduly at this stage, but I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that the Government's performance has been lamentable. We have had the great courtesy of some revealing figures from the Under-Secretary. We have had the difficulties of the local authorities explained and the confidence of the Scottish people predicted, but here is an amazing collection of hon. Members opposite who cannot find a single word to defend their Government colleagues—not one.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who has more knowledge—leave aside the question of judgment—than anyone else in the Committee, has not offered a single word in refutation of the conclusions of hon. Members on this side of the Committee representing adjacent constituencies, knowing the situation as he knows it—not one word. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), usually so noisy and vehement, has not uttered a single word. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) has been dealt with already. All he is to contribute to the debate, apparently, is a noisy laugh.
The Under-Secretary tried to tell us that there were only three courses that could have been taken to reduce these


high costs. That is not an exhaustive analysis as I hope to show in a moment. He talked about the new methods which I hope he will be able to apply to the construction of houses. He showed, unless I do him an injustice, that with the best possible methods available he hopes to get the figure down to about £1,600 plus something like £200 for services and site preliminaries. That is why I said that this was a very revealing debate.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman put as bold a face as possible on the proposition on Second Reading, but it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that he refused to discuss this figure in detail and he was very wise. He cannot hope to convince anyone in this Committee or any informed member of a local authority that there was any basis in fact or in equity for this figure of £1,635 as the basis of the subsidy calculation.
Moreover, the hon. and gallant Member has told us about the houses that are to be built by the best available methods, but this Committee is discussing the subsidy which must be applied to houses completed after a date in February this year, so that the great bulk of the local authorities cannot possibly have had the advantage of this new rate. They had, however, the great disadvantage of increased interest rates from November of the previous year.
Do not let there be any misunderstanding on this subject. Everyone in this Committee is anxious that the building industry, including the operative, managerial, and design sides, should bring all its weight and energy to bear on the drive for a reduction of building costs. I have never pretended otherwise, and we know that that is going to be done and we will join in any operation calculated to achieve that end. We also know that local authorities are unable to find the money to close this huge gap between the actual subsidy and the rent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) has produced figures showing that the most prudent people in Scotland will not be able to afford houses that are being built at this figure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), who has spent a life-time in local government, has warned us that we are

forcing local authorities towards the point where they would not be able to operate.
I remember the time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove concerned himself successfully with the plight of Scottish local authorities when the burden of unemployment in 1934 and 1935 was pushing them to a point where they could not possibly honour their obligations. At the end of 1935—and I give him great credit for this—he got an Exchequer grant which permitted them to operate, but they were nearly brought to a standstill. The burden which the present Secretary of State is today content to see thrust upon local authorities overwhelms that of 1935.
The third and final point I want to make, and which cannot be made too often, is that the Government cannot come here drawing around themselves the robes of virtue and righteousness, and then parade themselves as people anxious to help the local authorities and the tenants. They are helping nobody but the bankers by this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire smirks at that. Who else benefits from the Bill but the bankers? Let the Government tell us.
The design and purpose of the Bill is to try to catch up with the additional interest made available, by the deliberate design of the Government. Local authorities will not get anything extra but a few coppers towards the increased building costs—by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own admission—which will inevitably fall upon the builders in consequence of these higher interest rates. Even then I doubt the calculation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although I do not doubt his honesty. Tenants who are able to afford a higher proportion of their income as rent will have to face this position within another year and a great proportion of the people who hope for houses will not be able to take them. Great developments which we hoped for in the centres of our big towns will have to come to a standstill.
We cannot vote against this Clause, for the simple reason that we must see that these miserably inadequate subsidies are made available to the impoverished local authorities as quickly as possible, but I warn the Secretary of State solemnly that although his right hon.


Friend the Minister of Housing can go about making speeches now about 300,000 houses, in 12 months from now if, by misfortune, that Minister is still permitted to enjoy office, the position will be very different. I indicated six months ago that the figures for Scotland were bound to be rather good because of the preparations that we made.
I suppose it is hopeless to ask the Government to give further consideration to this subsidy. I hope that at some stage of the Bill the Minister will find an opportunity of explaining how they come to the £1,635-house proposition and how he, an expert in finance as well as in local government, can ever hope that local authorities will accept that figure.

Mr. T. Fraser: I said earlier that I regarded the Clause as a great fraud because it pretended to confer benefits upon either the local authorities or the tenants of local authority houses while rendering them worse off than they were before. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, in the course of his speech a little while ago, made it quite clear that the Clause is a fraud in another way.
He mentioned savings. I certainly want to see savings effected. The Minister told us that he had had the privilege last week of going to Paisley to open a house, that a four-apartment house at Paisley cost about £1,600, that there had been a saving of about £150 because of the techniques employed, and that that was £20 more than the savings allowed for in the subsidy provided under the Clause. He also said that the provision for site preparation and services would probably account for another £200. He said that the house on which a saving of £150 had been effected cost the local authority £1,800. But his subsidy is being paid in respect of that house under this Bill on the assumption that the house will cost not more than £1,635. Who will pay the difference? Either the local authority out of the local rates or the tenant of the house. Why do not the Government come clean and admit that they have been misleading all of us all along?
There has been some discussion about rents and the Joint Under-Secretary has told us that £42 is a notional rent. What is a notional rent?

Mr. A. Woodburn: It is one that does not exist.

Mr. Fraser: That is why it is notional. Is the Under-Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, giving instructions to the local authorities that a rent of £42 per year should be charged for a house that costs £1,635? What about the house that costs £1,800? What rent should be charged for that one? Presumably a rent much in excess of the £42.
Some of my hon. Friends have said with truth that there are many people on the housing lists who cannot afford a house at a rental of £42. I can think of the factory workers, the railway workers and many other workers in my constituency who have wages of £6, £5 10s., £5, and less per week. Is it being suggested that those workers should stay on the housing list and get a house for which they will pay a rental of £42?
Let no one think that it is just £42, because it is £42 plus rates. The rates in the county part of my constituency at the present time are 25s. 3d. to 25s. 9d. in the £. The occupier's rates are no less than 13s. in the £. If the rent were only £42—that is, if the local authority could build houses at £1,635, which they cannot—the tenant would be asked to pay £42 rent plus rates at 13s. in the £ on the £42, a total of £69 per year, or 26s. 6d. per week.
Are the Government saying that the £5 a week man should pay rent and rates at a minimum of 26s. 6d. a week? And what about those constituents of mine who have the misfortune to be sick or unemployed and are assisted by the National Assistance Board? I know that the Board will meet rents up to 14s. and 15s. a week, but will they meet rents of 26s. 6d. a week at a minimum, and if they do not, then the difference between what they pay and the 26s. 6d. will have to come out of the bellies of the children or the old people. That is what it amounts to.
This is a most serious discussion on a very serious matter. It does not say much for hon. Members of the party opposite that they have kept mum all night, that they have nothing to say. And the Government are speaking in a different tone of voice from that in which they used to speak on housing matters. They used to get hot and bothered, but tonight they are seeking to pour oil on the troubled waters. That is the "keep calm" group over there. We have no right to keep calm in this matter.
The Government spokesmen tonight have shown us that the figure of £1,635 as the cost of an average four-apartment house is a "phoney" figure. Even with the considerable economies that are being effected in house construction the figure goes far beyond the £1,635 that they estimated as the cost of a house in the buildup of the present subsidy. They have talked glibly about this notional rent of £42. Indeed, by their speeches tonight they have forfeited their right to continue to be responsible for the government of the country.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The Government, having listened to the debate and to their own contribution to it, must have realised that the time is coming when some clear statement must be made both to the House and to the country as to what this is all about. I am quite sure that the figures that have been bandied about tonight must leave the local authorities and the general public in confusion as to what is the policy of the Government in this financial matter of rents. It is a desperate thing and it is reaching a situation where, as one of my hon. Friends said, something may burst.
This clear statement cannot be given tonight. It is quite obvious that the Government are not in a position to declare any policy. They are not in a position to clear up this matter, but I hope that as a result of this debate they will decide at an early moment that the Secretary of State will either place a White Paper before the House or make some statement clearing up this matter and making it quite clear how these figures are built up, where we are going, and what is to be the result of the present housing and financial policy on the local authorities, on the tenants, and on the Government themselves.
We do not propose to continue the debate, because quite clearly nothing more of any value could be said tonight. As my hon. Friend has said, we do not propose to do anything to deter these subsidies being paid to the local authorities, who are desparately waiting to receive them. Therefore, we hope that what has been said tonight will be taken into account by the Government.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(INCREASED RATES OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED FOR AGRICULTURAL POPULATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. Fraser: I do not want to say much about the Clause. We on this side generally agree with the payment of higher subsidies in respect of the houses that are built by the local authorities for members of the agricultural population. I wonder, however, whether a spokesman for the Government could take this opportunity of saying how the local authorities are getting on with the provision of houses for that agricultural population.
I know that there are many obstacles in the way of local authorities fulfilling what was in 1947 a programme of, I think, 5,100 houses. I should not be surprised if that programme has not yet been fulfilled, but I think that the Government will want to tell us whether they are making good progress now with the construction of those houses, or whether—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think he will find that the Clause deals with the contributions rather than with the programme. I am sorry to have to ask him to limit himself to the question of the contribution.

Mr. Fraser: I think you will agree, Mr. Thomas, that if there were not a programme, there would not be much point in having a contribution. What I was seeking to find out was whether the Committee were being wise or unwise in agreeing to an increased contribution at this time, and what size the programme to be financed under this contribution was likely to be. In talking about the desirability of paying higher subsidies generally we have discussed the size of the housing programme that is to be encouraged by the provision of housing subsidies.
I am a little alarmed about the provisions in the following Clause, although I must not discuss that now. I wondered, however, whether the following Clause was inserted because the Government wish to bring the local authorities' agricultural programme to a speedy end. I


should have thought it was highly desirable, and would be agreed on all sides of the Committee, that local authorities should continue to build houses for members of the agricultural population, and I should have thought that we would all want to see Clause 2 being very widely used for that purpose. I wonder if the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will say a word or two about the agricultural programme under the auspices of the local authorities, the programme which is being financed under Clause 2.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) indicated, Clause 2 deals with the increased rates of Exchequer contributions in respect of housing accommodation for the agricultural population. In reply to his question about progress, I can tell him that to date approximately 2,600 houses have been completed. I cannot give him any precise information at present as to the future, but if I can at a later stage give him any information which will be of use to him I shall be glad to do so.
The Clause replaces the variable subsidies by axed subsidies. I believe this will be simpler in administration. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1949 there was criticism by the Public Accounts Committee of certain items under the previous system. I hope that this will be an improvement. It will certainly mean a simplification in administration not only for the central Department but also for the local authorities.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SCHEMES FOR THE PROVISION, OTHERWISE THAN BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from "may," to "submit," in line 24.
Hon. Members will see at a glance that we seek to delete from Clause 3 (1) the words which give the Secretary of State the power to instruct a local authority to make a scheme under which it may be required to grant assistance for the provision of houses for agricultural workers by private persons.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I cannot imagine that

the Secretary of State would want to issue an instruction, say, to the Lanark County Council. Let us assume that the Lanark County Council is making good progress with the provision of the houses which are provided for in Clause 2, and is meeting the requirements of the agricultural population as it is those of workers in other industries. The Lanark County Council might well take the view that it should not spend any of the ratepayers' money on subsidies for farmers and landowners to build houses for the agricultural population.
The Lanark County Council might well say "We will provide houses and reserve them for the use of the agricultural population, but they will not be tied houses because those who have the good fortune to occupy the houses will not be tied to specific farms." The Lanark County Council has a perfect right to take that view, and I believe it is exceedingly likely that it will take that view.
I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would really want to be in the position of sending an instruction to the Lanark County Council saying "Whether you like it or lump it, you must prepare a scheme under which you, as a local authority with a very heavy rate burden to carry at present, and irrespective of the number of houses you are building for the agricultural population, will find money to subsidise the farmers and landowners of Lanarkshire in the provision of tied houses." I should not think that the Secretary of State would be very anxious to arm himself with the power to issue such an instruction to local authorities.

Mr. Hubbard: Set the people free!

Mr. T. Fraser: As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) says, "Set the people free." That was a famous phrase used by the present Prime Minister; and Members on the other side of the Committee have often talked in recent weeks and months about the desirability of giving more power rather than more duties to the local authorities of Scotland.
I say to the Secretary of State that it will be a very easy matter for him to give to the local authorities more powers, or at least to desist from taking away powers from them, if he will merely get up and say that he will be glad to accept this


Amendment, because as he and every member of the Committee knows, if this subsection remains unamended he will be taking away from the local authority a power which it has at present and he will be imposing a duty upon the local authority which is not imposed at present. Under this Clause the powers of local authorities are reduced and their duties are increased.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to match his words and those of his political party colleagues with their actions in the framing of this Clause of the Bill. I urge him to follow the advice given by his Leader some time ago and make a little contribution towards setting the people free. At least put some trust in the democratically elected local authorities.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman's party is not a democratic party and that it has no great love for democratic institutions. His party believes in the fuehrer-leader principle, but much lip service has been paid to the democratic content of our local authorities in Scotland. I remember the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) standing at the Box on this side of the House, thumping the Box and saying: "The important thing about local government is, first, that it should be local, and, second, that it should he government."
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and say just a word in support of this Amendment. Let him speak now as he did when he was on this side of the House. Let him say, "I support the Members on the other side of the Committee who are anxious to make local government both local and government."
Let him support us on this occasion and say to his right hon. Friend, "For goodness sake allow the local authorities to run their own affairs and do not put this further burden upon them. Do not take this action you are proposing to take by which you will instruct the local authorities to make a scheme and impose financial obligations upon the local authorities which they are most unwilling to bear."
It seems to me that the Secretary of State has committed a great error in putting these new words into this subsection

of the Bill. I have only spoken at the length I have done because the Secretary of State has failed to give me any indication that he is willing to accept the Amendment. I hope that I have misunderstood him, that I have misconstrued his silence and lack of expression.
I hope that he will now get up and say that he is sorry, that he is wrong, that he has no desire to rob the local authorities of the powers they possess, that he has no desire to impose fresh duties on the local authorities, that he will trust these democratically elected local authorities in Scotland to make a scheme if it seems to them in their wisdom desirable that they should do so and that he will not insist upon issuing instructions to them. I hope that he will accept this Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: So far in our discussion we have seen what almost amounts to a conspiracy of silence among hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. I am hopeful that there will be some rebel who is prepared to break it.
I do not want to talk about the merits of the Clause itself but I think that every hon. Member on the other side of the Committee remembers past debates which we have had on this same subject, and they will agree that it is one of the most controversial matters in regard to housing in Scotland; the question of the tied house. Yet here we are, with the Secretary of State for Scotland projecting himself and his own wishes and taking powers which will enable him to override the wishes of local authorities in this matter. It is on that one aspect, to which our Amendment relates, that I wish to say a word.
We have heard, on this question of the powers of the local authorities, speech after speech from the men who tonight are so silent. We are getting quite used to the contrast between what happens after an election and what was said before an election by the party opposite. We remember those rolling phrases and high sounding sentiments.
Confidence and a greater measure of responsibility will be restored to the county burghs and district councils.
The Prime Minister said that in Scotland on 17th October, a week before the Election.
Here we are considering a housing Measure, something that has to be delegated to the local authorities, and is the responsibility of the local authorities to be trusted? In fact, are the wishes of the local authorities to be considered?
In that same speech the Prime Minister said:
There are too many controls and restraints holding back British genius, too many jobs which local authorities and voluntary bodies used to do that the State now insists on doing.
And here is the Secretary of State for Scotland insisting on doing a job that surely is the responsibility of the elected representatives of the counties or the burghs.
What is the justification for this? Surely the local authorities of Scotland, whom we are led to believe properly represent the people of Scotland, can be trusted to decide whether or not this Clause should be put into force?
It is surprising that the Secretary of State did not take the same power in Clause 2, which we have just been discussing, to force local authorities to build agricultural houses. But he insists that he will force local authorities to give us schemes in order to build tied houses at public expense. I think we should get an explanation of why the Secretary of State insists on this phrase in this Clause; why he does not trust the local authorities and why he does not measure up to the high-sounding phrases and all the hypocritical words which he and his colleagues uttered over the past five years. He is condemning himself, and by their silence right hon. and hon. Members opposite are condemning themselves, as hypocrites.

Mr. Pryde: On one occasion already I have described the Bill as rotten to the core. This Clause makes it absolutely stink. It gives power to the friends of the Conservative Party to revert again to the feudal system. Prior to the Election I said that if a Conservative Government were returned to power they would endeavour to turn the wheel of evolution backwards. That is exactly what is happening in this Clause.
The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party is not pleased today with the position in regard to the provision of houses for agricultural workers. Previously, my party, as the Government of the day, flung open a door that had never

been opened before, and we heard tonight an intimation that over 2,000 houses have already been built in Scotland.
I think everyone will agree that the houses built by the local authorities are very fine houses indeed. They are placed on sites where labour is conveniently available to the intensively cultivated portions of our constituencies. The Scottish Special Housing Association, of which I cannot speak too highly, is available to make provision in these rural areas for accommodation for the rural population.
This Clause will again place the iron heel upon our rural population, and I shall not sit quietly by and allow any of our agricultural workers to experience again what I have already seen inflicted upon them since 1945 in my own constituency. I have seen men turned out without any notice whatever, even in inclement weather, in which a woman and her child had to walk seven or eight miles in order to get shelter. I think it is morally wrong for any political party to arm any Government with the power that will inflict such hardship upon our rural population.
I am sure that the Government know perfectly well that the trade union which caters for the agricultural workers in Scotland has consistently and conscientiously fought against this position, and I am certain that not one agricultural vote will ever be cast for a Conservative candidate if we allow this Clause to go through.

Mr. J. Stuart: I should like to assure the Committee that there is no very sinister motive in the words which the Amendment seeks to delete. They were taken in their exact form from the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. Further, I do not want it to be thought that I am wishing to harass responsible local authorities. This provision has not been included with any desire to irritate them or make their life more burdensome, but because I thought that it was a wise provision which should be retained.
I must point out that the Government's aim and desire is to see a good supply of houses in agricultural areas. That is what we want to ensure, and, while the local authorities have their responsibilities, it is nevertheless the case that the Government have a considerable interest, to put it as mildly as possible, in this matter,


because the Exchequer provides three-quarters of the local authorities' expenditure, and, in the Highlands and Islands, seven-eighths of that expenditure. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the central Government are not interested in the work of the local authorities in the provision of privately built houses for agricultural workers.
I hope that hon. Members will not think it necessary to press this matter, because I think that this is a provision which might be of use. I am not expecting to have to use it, and I am not including it in the Bill for any sinister reason. It is merely that, desiring as we do to see houses built in agricultural districts, and in order to encourage them in every way where a local authority is slow or does not produce a scheme within a reasonable time, I felt that it would be a reasonable and wise precaution that the Government should have the power to ask them to do so.
That is the object of the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out. As I say, they have the merit of being the exact words which were included in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. I was not expecting it to be an Amendment which would take up a great deal of the time of the Committee, and I have also said that I hope it will not be necessary to use the power. But I am of the opinion that it might be a wise precaution to retain it, and. therefore. I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. John Wheatley: I am afraid that we have had nothing like a satisfactory answer from the Secretary or State for Scotlanad. Indeed, I think he has confused the arguments which have been presented to the Committee. He advanced, I think, two reasons to justify the introduction of this expression into this Clause. The first was to pray in aid the introduction of a similar expression in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. But that was dealing with an entirely different matter. It was dealing with a power given to the Secretary of State to demand that a local authority which had not supplied a scheme under the Act should present him with a scheme.
The Act dealt with schemes for the replacement of unsatisfactory houses. It is one thing to say to a local authority, "If you have a duty to supply a scheme for replacing unsatisfactory houses, and if you are not fulfilling that duty, then, as Secretary of State, I insist that you present a scheme in the interest of public health and all the other considerations that have to be taken into account when a local authority is not discharging its duty in these respects."
But we are not dealing with that type of case here; we are dealing with the type of case where under the Bill the local authority is given the power to present a scheme for the building by private individuals of houses for the agricultural population which will be subsidised by the Government to the extent of the figures mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
But, in so far as these houses may often be what are commonly known as tied houses, we are dealing with an entirely different situation, because a local authority could very well be fulfilling all its duties towards the people in its area by refusing to operate a scheme of this nature, and by saying, "If these members of the agricultural population have to be rehoused, we insist in doing it through the normal local authority channels, by building local authority houses. We do not agree with the principle of giving public money to private individuals to enable them to build houses which will come out of the normal housing pool and turn them into tied cottages." Therefore, there is no equation between the conditions under which this phrase was introduced in the 1938 Act and the circumstances of the present Act.
What was the other reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for including this phrase? He said it might be of use. How might it be of use? He said it might be of use where the local authority was slow or did not produce a scheme, and that in those circumstances it was right that the Government should have the power. But he did not go on to consider whether or not it was right on the merits that the Government should superimpose their will on the local authority in these particular circumstances.
I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to get to his feet again and explain to the Committee why he thinks that if a


local authority exercising the discretion, cretion, were to take the view that a scheme of this nature was undesirable because it preferred to rehouse the agricultural population under the local authority housing scheme and not by the giving of public money to private individuals to build tied houses, he should superimpose his will on the will of the local authority, exercising the discretion, and not, as in the case of the 1938 Act, refusing to exercise the discretion against the public interest? Really, we must get some more satisfactory and some more convincing answer from the other side of the Committee.
10.30 p.m.
Let me add my weight to the pleas of my hon. Friends to get some sort of support from the other side on this matter. I really do invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to break through the sound barrier. They have erected a sound barrier in respect of matters on which, in previous Parliaments, they were not only loquacious but, on occasion, verbose. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to a speech by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) when he referred to the undesirability of superimposing the will of the central Government on the local government to make it both local and government, and he made a very impassioned speech about that. He had the full support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side.
I would agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it may be necessary for the central Government to have this over-riding authority, should it be that the health, the sanitation, the interests of the community were at stake; but when we are dealing merely with a question as to the manner in which this particular subsidy should be granted, whether it should be granted or not in a particular area, then, manifestly, it is a matter for the people with local knowledge.
I invite the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State—or the Lord Advocate, whom I see here—to justify this. If there is this elected silence on the Front Bench, then I turn to the third bench below the Gangway and invite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove

to join in, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) sitting next to him, looking very pensive, and, I am sure, appreciating the force of the argument; or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) who has come to the Committee armed with authorities. I am sure he is wishing to quote them and prove conclusively not only what we said on previous occasions but what his right hon. Friends said on previous occasions.
Then there is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who is so very anxious to see that the rights of local authorities are preserved—even to the extent of disagreeing with them at times. I was sorry to see depart from the Committee the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) because I am sure that if he had been still here he would have wished to have summarised the whole of the arguments advanced to the Committee in the debate, and that might have given some thinking time to his right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench, to enable them to decide what they were going to do.
This is a very serious matter. It involves a matter of principle and the right hon. Gentleman ought to look at it again. I could put the matter no more succinctly, I think, than my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, when he said that the right hon. Gentleman does not concede it is necessary to step in to oblige local authorities to provide agricultural houses for the agricultural population if they are falling down on their job; but he is prepared to step in and force them to provide houses under such schemes despite the wishes of the local authorities in the matter. I think that that shows quite clearly one of the strong differences and cleavages of opinion between the two parties in this Committee.
If, as I am sure he has, the right hon. Gentleman has a sense of the high responsibility of his office, he will give further consideration to this, and if he is not prepared to give us an answer tonight, perhaps he will give us an undertaking that he will look at it and put down an appropriate Amendment at the next stage. Then we shall be content. If not, we must consider what action we shall take in the matter.

Mr. T. Fraser: The reply of the Secretary of State was about the most inadequate reply I have ever heard a Government spokesman make during the whole time I have been in Parliament. He said that this power in this subsection, which we wish to take away from him but which he wishes to have, is justified, and appears to him to be fully justified, because it was picked clean out of the 1938 Act.
What a justification. Did we on this side support this provision in the 1938 Act? Did the people of Scotland like it? They did not. It is precisely because the people of Scotland were tired of the legislation passed by a Tory Government that the majority of them voted for the Labour Party in 1945; and it is precisely for that reason that the Tory Party has not got a majority in Scotland even at the present time.
The Tories were told in 1937 by the Advisory Committee on Housing that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, should run out in two years' time—namely, in 1939—because almost all the houses capable of being improved had been dealt with and the Act should be terminated. But the Tory Government of that day thought it would be a good thing if they introduced a new Bill to provide public moneys to help build new houses to replace those that were not worth improving.
Lest some progressive authority, like the Lanarkshire County Council, should say, "We are not going to give the ratepayers' money for the replacement of those old, dilapidated farm-workers' houses," the Secretary of State at that time put in this little provision, that if a local authority did not make a scheme he would have the power to instruct them to make a scheme.
Now the Secretary of State says, "Since we got away with it in 1938, surely you are not going to object to us doing it in 1952"—and doing it this time, incidentally, not merely for the replacement of unsatisfactory houses but for the building of tied houses ad lib. If that is the best answer he has to give us this evening, we are not willing to accept it.
When he was speaking I had the feeling that perhaps there were so many Ministers in the Scottish Office nowadays that the brief on this Amendment had been picked up by the Minister of State,

Scottish Office, and taken away to another place, because it was very difficult to believe he was giving the best answer to this Amendment. I do ask him to consider this again. What right has he to tell the local authorities of Scotland, "You must make a scheme to help finance the building of tied houses" when he does not take the power to say to the local authorities of Scotland, "You will provide houses for members of the agricultural population"? He is protecting himself against progressive authorities in Scotland by putting this power into one Clause and saving himself from the reactionary local authorities by not putting the power into another Clause.
We do not accept his reply, and I invite him to say, either that he will have further thought about this before the Report stage, or to go a little further and say he has been convinced, as any sensible person would be, by the arguments advanced in support of this Amendment, and that in the circumstances he will accept it.

Mr. M. MacMillan: I should like to ask the Secretary of State, or whoever is to reply, under just what circumstances would he use the powers proposed to be taken in this Clause, because the more he uses those powers, the more will he make inroads on the materials, the scarce labour, and the general capacity of the county councils—especially those in difficult Highland areas. There, as I know so well, it is difficult for them to build the ordinary quota of houses, apart from tied cottages.
I cannot follow the rhetoric of the hon. Member who quoted the Act of 1938. Why take private building under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, and compare that with private building under this Bill? The hon. Member said the Government was on the side of the rural population, but I think it is heedless of the agricultural population. The hon. Member was talking in terms of houses built with real private enterprise by crofters built with their own hands and skill, and it says much for them when it is remembered what the output was without full training in house-building, and with only the grants available. But grants have been available on a much more generous scale over the last two years from State funds.
These houses were built under mortgage to the Department of Agriculture, the money being repaid over a considerable period of years. They were considered ancillary to the croft on which they were built, and that is a very different matter from assistance being offered to the owners of tied houses which will remain private property, and whose value will be decided and enhanced with the assistance of State funds.
The 1938 Act, broadly, was to enable crofters to enjoy grants and loans repayable by them for houses built, in the main, by their own enterprise. It is different for private persons to take advantage of an offer of State money to build houses as tied cottages.
Would the Minister like to tell us just a little more? All of us on this side think that it is most unwise to encroach upon the liberty of the local authorities of Scotland and not to let them take their decisions freely, as democratically elected bodies. They should decide how much of their resources in labour and materials is to be devoted to the building of essential houses for renting, and how much is to go to the building of tied cottages. I assure the Minister that it is a most important matter in Highland areas, where it is almost impossible for one to lay hands on resources for building the absolute minimum of houses to rent.
I was told, in answer to a Question some time ago, by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollak (Commander Galbraith) that the Inverness County Council does not intend to build a single house in the course of the present year in the Western Isles; yet some hundreds were built in the course of the last few years through the enterprise and energy of the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland. This year, he tells me, none at all.
Throughout the Western Isles the Inverness-shire County Council cannot get contractors to go there and build at less than £2,600 per house. One can have all the modern techniques in the world but if one cannot get contractors one will certainly not get the houses. If, in addition, the enforcement of this provision is applied, the preparing of schemes—and by implication the provision of labour—for tied cottages, it will reduce even further their capacity to provide houses for the purpose of letting to an absolute minimum.

Is that to be applied, or is it not, and in what circumstances is it to be applied, having regard to the most difficult counties?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Does the Secretary of State intend to say something further on this?

Mr. J. Stuart: All I wish to explain to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) is that the sole object of the Government is to see that housing is carried out and that we get on with the job. The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to progressive authorities, but the sole object of the words which the Opposition seek to leave out is to ensure that any authorities who will not progress will take some interest and submit a scheme because it is Government policy to aim at the increased building of houses.
As I have said, I hope not to have to use it, but the Government have a grave responsibility and are also paying three quarters of the cost and seven-eighths in some areas. They have a responsibility to see that housing is provided, and the best housing we can afford. That is the sole object. I said there is nothing sinister about it. I do not want to have to use it; it is the last thing I want to have to do.
In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East, I had no intention of trying to mislead in reference to the 1938 Act. What I meant to say was that the words proposed to be omitted are reproduced verbatim from the corresponding provision of the 1938 Act. I was not suggesting that the 1938 Act did exactly the same as this Measure, but that there was the precedent for the wording. That was why the words appeared in that form; they had been taken from another Act.

Mr. Woodburn: This seems to be an entirely new principle. For the first time, not only is a local authority to be able to be told to carry out a housing programme under its own auspices but now it is to be actually compelled to provide houses which are to become the property of other people altogether. That is a principle to which we cannot agree and I ask hon. Members—I am sure they will do so with great pleasure—to register their opposition to it in the Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 129.

Division No. 235.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Arbuthnot, John
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, C.


Baldoek, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Hope, Lord John
Rakes, H. V.


Baxter, A. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Redmayne, M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Horobin, I. M.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robertson, Sir David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bishop, F. P.
Hurd, A. R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott, R. Donald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Shepherd, William


Brooman-White, R. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Snadden, W. McN


Bullard, D. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Channon, H.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Linstead, H. N.
Storey, S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, H. G.


Deedes, W. F.
McCallum, Major D.
Summers, G. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
McKibbin, A. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Donner, P. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Turner, H. F. L.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fell, A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Finlay, Graeme
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.



Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Markham, Major S. F.
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.


Galbrailh, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maudling, R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C.
Wellwood, W.


Godber, J. B.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mellor, Sir John
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Gower, H. R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grimond, J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wills, G.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Donnelly, D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Benson, G.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Keenan, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gooch, E. G.
King, Dr. H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Callaghan, L. J.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, J. E.


Champion, A. J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McInnes, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Clunie, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
McLeavy, F.


Collick, P. H.
Hargreaves, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cullen, M. &amp; A.
Hayman, F. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hobson, C. R.
Manuel, A. C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Houghton, Douglas
Mellish, R. J.


Deer, G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Delargy, H. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.




Monslow, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Timmons, J.


Morley, R.
Rhodes, H.
Wallace, H. W.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, T. E.


Mort, D. L.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Mulley, F. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Nally, W.
Ross, William
Wells, William (Walsall)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Royle, C.
West, D. G.


Orbach, M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Oswald, T.
Short, E. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)
Slater, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Poole, C. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Popplewell, E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Porter, G.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)



Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mr. Hannan and




Mr. Horace Holmes.

To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SPAIN (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On 7th July, the Minister of State announced that the ban on arms for Spain, which had been imposed since the war, was to be lifted. As justification for this action he said that it was required on economic grounds because British firms were being deprived of important commercial advantages. Apparently, this selfish and narrow view was taken without full consideration of the international implications of such an act. World democratic opinion, apparently, was ignored. The fact we had voted for, and stood by, the United Nations resolution which condemned the Franco régime as Fascist was not taken into account.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary tonight what are the great advantages which are to accrue to commercial interests in this country from the removal of this ban. Can they be so great as to outweigh the harm that is being done throughout the democratic world by announcing to the world that our attitude to Franco has apparently changed and that we are now recognising him as a suitable recipient of arms?
This ban was removed in July. I want to know from the Under-Secretary to what extent arms have been shipped to Spain since then, and what is the commercial

value of them, and to what extent sterling or other currency has been received. I cannot believe that the advantages which have accrued are worth the damage which is being done throughout the free world as a result of this condoning of something which we had previously condemned, a régime condemned by the United Nations as Fascist.
This action is bound to have an adverse effect on the morale and political leadership of the West. The morale of the countries which have united to preserve the democratic way of life, joining the Atlantic Pact so to do, is bound to be upset by this coming closer to a régime which represents everything which we condemn and everything which is abhorrent to the free world. Small as this action may be in the result, it will have a wide effect on those Spaniards, both inside and outside Spain, who look to the Western world to assist them, if in no other way, at least in moral leadership in encouraging them to rid themselves of a régime which they detest.
It is not the size of the gain that matters, but what it signifies that harms. This is one of many gestures which have been made and one of many which, taken together, can have a considerable effect. To this must be added the fact that at the recent meeting of U.N.E.S.C.O. we endorsed Spain's admission. I want the Under-Secretary to tell me where we stand in that regard now. In the near future, at the meeting of the United Nations, the question of the admission of Spain will again arise.
Meanwhile, since we first gave our adherence to the admission of Spain to membership of U.N.E.S.C.O., Spain has banned the import of certain


U.N.E.S.C.O. publications. If a country refuses to have the publications of a United Nations organisation within its borders, surely it is not worthy to be a member of the organisation. One of the books banned by the Spanish Government and returned to the Secretary-General of U.N.E.S.C.O. by the Spanish censors was the Human Rights Charter of the United Nations.
Another gesture indicating this movement closer to Franco and bringing him nearer as an ally has been the visit to Spanish ports of some of the vessels of the Royal Navy. What can Franco give in return for these gestures, and what is he doing to merit them? I believe that by making these gestures to bring Franco into closer friendship with us we are whittling away the potential bargaining power which might ultimately be used to bring pressure upon Franco perhaps to liberalise, if that were possible, his regime, or, if he refused to do so, would enable us to get rid of the present Spanish régime or, perhaps I should say, for the Spanish people themselves to get rid of it.
Franco has shown quite clearly, particularly in the negotiations which have been going on with the American Government, that he will take all and give nothing. I understand that in these negotiations between America and Spain. for the lease of air bases and military bases, Franco has demanded that the credit of 125 million dollars which has already been voted by the United States Congress, but which has not yet been received by Spain, should be handed over, not for the economic purposes which are so essential for the welfare of the Spanish people, but to be used to equip 10 or 12 divisions of the Spanish Army.
If my information is correct it is a clear indication that all Franco wants is an army and not the additional monetary help which the country so badly needs. What he wants is a strong well-equipped army, not to be an ally of N.A.T.O. or to assist the Western world to defend democracy, but to back up and maintain his own dictatorship. I know that the talks which have been going on between the United States and Spain are not directly our concern; that they are an American affair. But I recall that the previous Government took a strong line in that regard, and when there were indications that America would not be

averse to Spain becoming a member of N.A.T.O. it was made quite clear by the then Government that it would not receive our support.
We are partners in N.A.T.O. with the United States and our other Allies and if this independent action of hers makes more arms available to Spain and reduces the amount of equipment available to the West, it is clearly our concern. I would add that one cannot be certain about what Franco would do in the event of an emergency arising, or if one could be confident that he would be with the West—which I certainly am not—from his behaviour in the last war, when he was quite clearly an ally of Hitler and Mussolini in the early days. One wonders also, what would be the attitude of the Spanish people once war started, and whether they would stand behind him. From my experience of Spain and the Spanish people I would certainly think that that would not be the case.
What I should like the Under-Secretary to tell the House tonight, if he is able, is how far these negotiations between America and Spain have gone. How do they stand? Have we been informed about them and of their progress and result; and, above all, have we made it clear to the United States that we are strongly in opposition to Spain coming into N.A.T.O., either by the front door or the back door? I should like an assurance from him that the policy which I stated from where he stands now on 20th February, 1951, that the then Government were opposed to Spain becoming a member of N.A.T.O., still stands. I failed to get such an assurance from the Minister of State on 25th March of this year. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to give it to me tonight.
I regret very much that the decision has been made to let Spain purchase arms in this country. I say that because of the present state of Spain; because of the régime which rules there and because of the political plight of the Spanish people; and, above all, because of the effect which this has on peoples of the free world and because it undermines the moral leadership which we are able to provide. It is a strategic mistake, a practical error, because Spain's dependence upon outside economic and defensive help might ultimately be used by us in conjunction with others, and particularly in co-operation


with democratic Spaniards who want to restore democracy to their country.
The potential power we possess to assist her should be kept in reserve for the day when we could use it as a bargaining counter to obtain a change in that régime. I do not say that it is possible to achieve that, or that at any stage will Franco be willing to liberate his country in return for aid, but if the Spanish people, at the opportune time, were aware that this economic help was available, and that their country could be put on its feet and accepted as a partner in the free world—and Franco refused—he might be driven out by the force of public opinion. By whittling away this potential power we are putting ourselves in a weaker position.
I say that because I was in Spain for a short time this summer, not having been there for some six years. No one can visit Spain today without being overwhelmed by the fear and oppression of the Spanish people. That fear has increased during these years because of the large number of people who have suffered under the Franco régime and who have been deprived of their political and human rights. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary of State for Air to laugh. If he had been to Spain this summer, as he indicates, I doubt very much whether he met some of the people I did, or that he moved in the same circles or associated with those who had suffered under the régime. I imagine that those with whom he associated were those who were benefiting from the régime, and not the vast majority who have suffered.
Generally, when this question of Spain is raised in the House, at Question time or on other occasions, someone from the opposite benches asks about Tito. The difference between the two régimes is very great. In the first place, Tito liberated his country from the Germans. He fought against Hitler and established himself by conquering the enemy, and was put in power with the free support of his people. Franco was put into power with the assistance of Hitler and Mussolini and established a régime which was abhorrent to us, and one which we have condemned at the United Nations. It is the kind of régime we fought during the war. He was an

enemy of the United Nations. Yugoslavia is a member of the United Nations while Spain cannot be a member, and it is on the records of the United Nations that she cannot be as long as the Franco régime persists.
It is understandable that the Spanish people—who see today this country, which sets itself out as one of the great democracies and leaders of democracy, and the United States also, being more ready and willing to accept the undemocratic régime which persists in Spain and to make this gesture of greater friendship and co-operation towards this Fascist State—are almost in a state of despair about bringing about a change there and are losing hope, belief, and faith in the democratic countries when they see their erstwhile friends deserting them. Although the actual result of the action taken in allowing arms to go to Spain makes little difference economically it means a great deal politically. It is an error which a democratic country like ours should be ashamed of making.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: I intervene only briefly because of one or two statements made that seemed to be a little wide of the mark, and I speak only to make a plea for moderation in the discussion of the whole matter. I have not had the advantage enjoyed by the hon. Member opposite of spending some time this summer in Spain, but a relative of mine who had not so long ago escaped from bondage in Tito's Yugoslavia was staying there and found the people there more carefree than in any of the countries of eastern Europe through which she had to pass in the course of her escape.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to the banning by the Spanish censorship of free circulation in Spain of publications authorised by the United Nations—U.N.E.S.C.O., in particular.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Banning even the entry of those publications.

Mr. Maitland: I am not for one moment attempting to dispute that fact, but I think that research would show that something not far different pertains over the territories of many members of the United Nations; one has in mind Tito's Yugoslavia; one has in mind the Soviet Union.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Yugoslavia is a member of U.N.E.S.C.O., that there is no censorship on the entry into Yugoslavia of such publications, and, further, that British periodicals circulate freely in the well patronised British reading room in Belgrade?

Mr. Maitland: I do not wish to prolong my intervention, and I shall not take advantage of the indulgence of the House to pursue the matter, but I was referring to free circulation.
There was one other point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that we might, in consideration of our membership of N.A.T.O., exercise some restraining influence on the United States. Surely we should also consider our alliance, which is ancient, and which is fortified again in N.A.T.O., with Portugal? Portugal is pressing for a policy of moderation to Spain.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who has recently visited Spain, has raised some important points, and I shall do my best in the short time available to cover them and, I hope, to satisfy him about the policy of the Government in this respect. Our policy towards Spain, as has already been said in the House, is to work for correct and friendly relations. Surely there is nothing very novel or startling or reprehensible in that. Surely it is better, surely it benefits the peoples of both countries, that we should conduct our policy and our relationships on this basis, rather than on a basis of political, social and economic ostracism.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there had been any change in our policy since that of his Government. This policy is no more than the further development of the policy pursued by the late Government after the United Nations had rescinded, in November, 1950, certain parts of their 1946 resolution. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his Government joined with other United Nations Governments in sending ambassadors once more to Madrid. He will also recall that they voted in favour of the admission of Spain both to the World Health Organisation and to the Food and Agriculture

Organisation of the United Nations. These actions surely represented a significant modification of the late Government's former policy of ostracism, and all that we are doing from the political point of view today is to continue along those lines.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about United States policy. He, from his own experience in the office I now hold, will be aware that I obviously cannot speak about the policy of the United States Government in this regard. I have no authority or right to do so. Without their authority it is quite impossible for me to give an account of confidential discussions which they have been pursuing with the Spanish Government. But I can assure him of this, that the United States Government are well aware of our interests and of our views in this matter, and those of our other N.A.T.O. allies; and I can assure him that we have been kept informed of the course of these discussions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me also about our policy as regards Spain and N.A.T.O., and he complained that the Minister of State had not been very clear on this subject. Her Majesty's Government's policy, as I have told the House at Question time in the past, is not to invite Spain into N.A.T.O. But, as the Minister of State said in the debate in the House on 25th March, that is not an actual problem today; it is not a matter which requires a decision at the present time, and it is obviously a matter which must require the consent of the members of N.A.T.O.
Now I come to deal with the specific question of U.N.E.S.C.O., which the hon. Gentleman raised. As I said in answer to a Question on 11th June last, we saw no good reason to oppose the admission of Spain to U.N.E.S.C.O., and we trust that this, if it takes place, may be of some benefit to the Spanish people. What is more, as I also said then, we believe that the way to get the best out of these organisations is to make them as universal and all-embracing as possible. Spain's application for membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. has yet to come before the General Assembly of the United Nations at its present Session, and has yet to be confirmed by the General Assembly before she becomes a member of the organisation.
The hon. Gentleman complained that the Spanish censor had recently banned certain U.N.E.S.C.O. publications which have been sent to Spain, and suggested that for this reason Spain is not fit to be a member of this organisation. Surely, if his object is to get these publications freely circulated in Spain the best way to achieve this would be to get Spain into U.N.E.S.C.O. and not to keep her out of it.
Now let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's further strictures upon us for removing the ban on the sale of military equipment to Spain. First of all, let me deal with his accusation that this action by Her Majesty's Government was taken without consultation with other Powers. That is not true. As the Minister of State said in answer to a Question on this subject, we consulted another N.A.T.O. Power. I am in a position to say that the other N.A.T.O. Power was France and that the French agreed with our policy, and as far as I am aware their policy is in accord with ours.
Let me re-emphasise that the equipment we propose to license for export to Spain is obsolescent in the first place, and in the second place is what we call common-use materials; that is to say, it can be used for military or civil purposes; it is not specifically armaments, it is not specifically war material. The types of equipment which we contemplate sending are, for example, piston-type aero engines, radio direction finders for aerodromes, obsolescent radar and wireless equipment.
As has already been pointed out by myself at Question time, our N.A.T.O and Commonwealth partners are, of course, first in the queue for any military equipment, and the export of this material to Spain will in no way prejudice their interests. Naturally, we have taken into account not only defence considerations but also financial and commercial problems; that is to say, no exports to Spain of this material will be at the expense of countries, such as hard currency countries, to whom for balance of payments purposes it would be more to our advantage to sell. In fact, I assure him that the equipment which we propose to send is material for which there is virtually no demand in any friendly or neutral country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the economic advantages which we hope to

derive from this policy, and I will tell him that apart from tomatoes, citrus fruit and, of course, sherry, we import from Spain certain strategic materials such as pyrites, iron ore, and wolfram. These are of the greatest importance to our industry, and the more we can get the better. Naturally, we hope that by exporting more to Spain we shall get more of these strategic materials in return.
The hon. Member asked, too, for figures of the exports of the material which has so far been shipped. He will understand that, as this development in our policy has only just recently taken place, only a few thousands of pounds worth of exports have been made. But a contract for aero engines to the tune of £500,000 is, I understand, being licensed, and shipment is expected to take place within the next six months. Further licences may, no doubt, be considered in due course.
As for the general figures for trade between Spain and the United Kingdom, I am happy to say that these have shown an improvement in the first eight months of this year. Compared with the corresponding period of 1951, the adverse gap—adverse, that is, to this country—has been narrowed from £19 million to £9 million, and we hope that the export of this material will help still further to reduce this gap.
The House will, however, understand from what I have just said about shipments that these general trade figures I have quoted do not reflect any sales of military material. I need not emphasise that it is imperative for this country to neglect no opportunity, however small, to expand our export trade, and to achieve a better balance in our trading accounts everywhere in the world, subject, of course, to security requirements. It would be dangerous folly for this country to allow any occasion to slip whereby we might establish commercial markets which will help not only to balance our accounts in the immediate future, but to provide for later expansion of trade if and when, as we hope, the demands of re-armament upon our resources can one day safely be reduced. Far from weakening our position, as he suggests, this policy, we hope, will strengthen it.
I cannot accept the suggestion that this attempt to improve economic relations between our countries is likely to lessen public morale in Spain. I simply


cannot see that by sending radar equipment to make Spanish aerodromes safer to land on, or by bringing Spain into the cultural orbit of the United Nations, we axe doing anything contrary to the interests or aspirations of the Spanish people. Nor can I understand why it is right to vote for Spain to join the Food and Agriculture Organisation, as his Government did, and wrong to vote for her to join U.N.E.S.C.O.
I would remind the hon. Member that man, whether Spanish or not, cannot live

by bread alone. I should have thought that all that we are doing would be to the economic, social, and cultural advantage of the Spanish people as a whole. At any rate, that is what we hope. The idea that—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.